10. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 7/27

Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf reasons and the principle of proportionality. Codirex BV) against the Commission of the European Communities (1) The Decision concerns the application of Article 13 of Council (Case T-290/97) Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ L 175, (98/C 7/70) 12. 7. 1979, p. 1). (2) OJ C 137, 3. 6. 1995, p. 34. (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (Language of the case: Dutch) laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993, p. 1). An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV), Rotterdam, represented by P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the Rotterdam Bar, with Action brought on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen an address for service in at the Chambers of and Others against the Council of the European Union M. Loesch, 11, rue Goethe. and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-291/97) The applicant claims that the Court should: (98/C 7/71)

Ð annul the Commission's Decision (C(97)2331 final) of (Language of the case: French) 22 July 1997 (1), addressed to the Netherlands, An action against the Council of the European Union and Ð order the Commission to pay the costs. the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, represented by Fernand Entringer, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in The present case is a continuation of Case T-89/95 (2), in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 34A, rue Philippe II. which the applicant contested the earlier refusal by the Commission to decide that the same agricultural levies as The applicants claim that the Court should: those in issue in the present case should be repaid.

Ð declare that there has been wrongful conduct on the After the Commission had withdrawn the decision at part of the Commission and the Council; that their issue, the case was removed from the register of the Court wrongful conduct gives rise to the Union's non- of First Instance. contractual liability; that damage has been suffered by the applicants as a result of the wrongful conduct; that the Union is required to compensate them for that The applicant advances the following pleas against the damage, decision contested in the present case:

Ð take formal note of the fact that the applicants Ð lack of competence on the part of the Commission, in estimate the damage at Lfrs 3 000 000, without that it allowed the mandatory time limit prescribed by prejudice to any calculation made specifically in the second sentence of Article 907 of Regulation regard to each undertaking, (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) to elapse by failing in good time to adopt a decision on the first application for Ð order the Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. remission,

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Ð breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that the The applicants are seeking compensation for the damage applicant could not have known that its application which they allege to have suffered as a result of acts and for remission had not caused time to start running, omissions by the Council and the Commission when Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Mad Cow Ð infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) Disease', appeared. No 1430/79, in that the Commission failed to take into account the different time limits applying under On the basis of a report published on 7 February 1997 by Netherlands law to supplementary applications for the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE, constituted reimbursement of import duties and agricultural levies, by the European Parliament, the applicants consider that C 7/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 1. 98 it has been shown that the Council and the Commission Majerus-Weis, residing at Christnach (Luxembourg); 42. have rendered the European Union liable by the Henri Mangen, residing at Bertrange (Luxembourg); 43. commission of highly reprehensible acts and the failure to Guy Mangen, residing at Berg (Luxembourg); 44. Jean- adopt measures which would have allowed rectification in Paul Martzen, residing at Merscheid (Luxembourg); good time of a catastrophic situation endangering not only 45. Aloyse Marx, residing at Garnich (Luxembourg); human health but also the public's faith in the institutions 46. Camille Mathey, residing at Stegen (Luxembourg); governing them. They state that the acts of commission 47. Jean-Marcel Mettendorff, residing at Mecher and omission by the Council and the Commission have (Luxembourg); 48. Jean-Marie Meyrer, residing at undermined the confidence of the inhabitants of the Union Welfrange (Luxembourg); 49. Marc Meyer-Ernzen, in the basic foodstuffs produced in it and so created an residing at Echternach (Luxembourg); 50. Rene Molitor, unreasonable fear of those products. residing at Berndorf (Luxembourg); 51. Ets. Nicolay FreÁres CEA, established at Reuland (Luxembourg); 52. The applicants state that, as a result of that misconduct, Armand Noe, residing at (Luxembourg); 53. all producers of bovine meat and all producers of cows' Jos Olinger, residing at Ettelbrück (Luxembourg); 54. Ets. milk have suffered a direct loss of revenue from their Olinger and Neu GA, established at Grosbous farming activities of between 25% and 30% over a (Luxembourg); 55. Georges Peping, residing at Ersange period of at least three years. They estimate the loss per (Luxembourg); 56. Ed Praus, residing at Koetschette undertaking per year as between Lfrs 750 000 and (Luxembourg); 57. Emile Raus, residing at Ehlange/Mess 1 500 000, but without prejudice to a subsequent expert's (Luxembourg); 58. Ets. Sopibo (Louis Boonen), report. Each producer is therefore claiming three years' established at Haller (Luxembourg); 59. Nico Schank- losses of Lfrs 1 000 000, that is to say Lfrs 3 000 000. Neser, residing at Hautbellain (Luxembourg); 60. Camille Schiltz, residing at Bourglinster (Luxembourg); 61. Robert ANNEX Schmitz-Georges, residing at Marnach (Luxembourg); 62. Ets. Sopraco SC, established at Manternach 1. Robert Mehlen, residing at Manternach (Luxembourg); (Luxembourg); 63. Anne Steichen-Leclere, residing at 2. Wim Albers, residing at Boevang/ Mondercange (Luxembourg); 64. Etc. Savaco SC, (Luxembourg); 3. Andre Asseray, residing at Pratz established at Colpach-Bas (Luxembourg); 65. Raymond (Luxembourg); 4. Jos Bich-Mathes, residing at Betzdorf Thull, residing at Alzingen (Luxembourg); 66. Nico (Luxembourg); 5. Gusty Biren, residing at Luxembourg; 6. Turmes, residing at Knaphoscheid (Luxembourg); 67. Jean Nico Brack, residing at Eschdorf (Luxembourg); 7. Severin Weiler, residing at Hobscheid (Luxembourg); 68. Norbert Boonen, residing at Elvange (Luxembourg); 8. Ets. Welter, residing at Bourglinster (Luxembourg); 69. Marc Capriso SC, established at Canach (Luxembourg); 9. Leon Zenner, residing at Lipperscheid (Luxembourg); 70. LeÂon Clees and Son, residing at Allerborn (Luxembourg); 10. Zigrand, residing at Niederpallen (Luxembourg); 71. Jean- Peter Dahmen, residing at Mützenich (Federal Republic of Claude Zinnen, residing at Savelborn (Luxembourg). Germany); 11. Robert Duhr-Arendt, residing at Manternach (Luxembourg); 12. Jean Dupont, residing at Diekirch (Luxembourg); 13. Camille and Paul Eicher, residing at Marnach (Luxembourg); 14. Alphonse Elsen, residing at Goeblange (Luxembourg); 15. Nic Erpelding, Removal from the register of T-111/95 (1) residing at Oberwampach (Luxembourg); 16. Peter Feinen, (98/C 7/72) residing at Rommersheim (Federal Republic of Germany); 17. Alphonse Ferber, residing at Buschrodt (Luxembourg); (Language of the case: French) 18. Marcel Ferring, residing at Betzdorf (Luxembourg); By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the First 19. Henri Frank, residing at Garnich (Luxembourg); Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 20. Georges Friederich, residing at Aspelt (Luxembourg); Communities ordered the removal from the register of 21. Josy Gengler, residing at Koerich (Luxembourg); Case T-111/95: Pierre Jaminon v. Council of the European 22. Gerekens FreÁres, residing at Reichlange (Luxembourg); Union and Commission of the European Communities. 23. Ed. Gillen, residing at Manternach (Luxembourg); 24. Jean-Marie Godelet, residing at Ell (Luxembourg); (1) OJ C 189, 22. 7. 1995. 25. Charles Goedert, residing at Ospern (Luxembourg); 26. Fernand Goedert, residing at Ell (Luxembourg); 27. Jacques Greisch-Schmidt, residing at Sanem (Luxembourg); 28. Louis Guth, residing at Hivange (Luxembourg); 29. Marc Hansen, residing at Lellig Removal from the register of T-156/97 (1) (Luxembourg); 30. Hilgert-Schmidt, residing at Olm (98/C 7/73) (Luxembourg); 31. Ets. Hogemav SC, established at Imbringen (Luxembourg); 32. Jules Jungels, residing at (Language of the case: German) Oetrange (Luxembourg); 33. Mathias and Heinrich Kaut, By order of 12 November 1997, the President of the residing at Burg-Reuland (Belgium); 34. Emile Kieffer, Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the residing at Reichlange (Luxembourg); 35. Guy Kneip, European Communities ordered the removal from the residing at Beiler (Luxembourg); 36. Marcel Laplume, register of Case T-156/97: Achim Berge v. Commission of residing at (Luxembourg); 37. Edy Loesch- È the European Communities. Eischen, residing at Buschrodt (Luxembourg); 38. Joseph Lux, residing at Holzem (Luxembourg); 39. Andre (1) OJ C 228, 26. 7. 1997. Majerus, residing at Mecher (Luxembourg); 40.Servais Majerus, residing at Kuborn (Luxembourg); 41. Alphonse