EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/27

(Case T-194/08)

(2008/C 197/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic) and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Order the defendant to pay the applicant company a total of EUR 18 946 139 for material loss suffered;

—Order the defendant to pay the applicant company the sum of EUR 100 000 for non-material loss suffered;

—Order the defendant to pay Mr Cattin the sum of EUR 150 000 for non-material loss suffered;

—Add default interest to those amounts to run from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until effective payment, at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations plus 2 points, such rate not to exceed 6 %;

—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the case, those incurred both by the applicant company and by Mr Cattin.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, specialising in production, processing and exportation of coffee in the Central African Republic, has been refused reimbursement via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF) of debts which it held from the State body ‘Soutien Café’, a body created to support the price of coffee at the time of large reductions in prices at the end of the 1980's. The applicant company was refused reimbursement on the ground that, according to an audit report established at the request of the national authorities, it had probably embezzled certain sums for the benefit of its associates. Following that refusal, the applicant company has had to suspend all its activities and dismiss the 800 permanent employees working in its plantations.

In support of their action, the applicants allege, firstly, a breach of (i) their rights of the defence, since the applicant company did not present evidence at the time the audit report which found that there had been embezzlement was established and (ii) of the presumption of innocence, since no evidence was put forward to support that finding.

Next, the applicants raise a plea alleging breach of the principles of effective judicial protection, legal certainty and the duty to give reasons, since the applicant company was refused reimbursement without the Commission having sent it any decision and without the company having been informed formally of the recommendations of the audit report on which that refusal was based.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the principles of due care and sound administration, since applications sent to the Commission by the national authorities concerning the applicant company's case went unanswered and the audit report was based on incorrect figures, which meant that a second expert opinion was required, which the Commission accepted without, however, obtaining such an opinion.

* * *