Avis juridique important

61988O0152(01)

European Court reports 1992 Page I-00153

Parties

In Case C-152/88,

Sofrimport SARL, a company incorporated under French law whose registered office is in Paris, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst, a member of the Hague Bar with right of audience before the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court of the Netherlands], and E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Peter Oliver, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Roberto Hayder, a representative of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Regulations (EEC) No 962/88 and No 984/88 of 12 and 14 April 1988 suspending the issue of import licences for dessert apples originating in Chile (Official Journal 1988 L 95, p. 10, and L 98, p. 37) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1040/88 of 20 April 1988 fixing quantities of imports of dessert apples originating in third countries and amending Regulation (EEC) No 962/88 suspending the issue of import licences for dessert apples originating in Chile (Official Journal 1988 L 102, p. 23) and for damages,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of: R. Joliet, President of the Chamber, Sir Gordon Slynn, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias and M. Zuleeg, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Tesauro,

Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General,

makes the following

Grounds

1 By interlocutory judgment of 26 June 1990 the Court (Fifth Chamber) upheld the applicant' s claim and annulled Commission Regulations (EEC) No 962/88 and No 984/88 of 12 and 14 April 1988 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1040/88 of 20 April 1988 in so far as they concerned products in transit to the Community and ordered the European Economic Community to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the application of Regulations (EEC) No 962/88, No 984/88 and No 1040/88; it reserved its decision on costs.

2 The Court asked the parties to settle the amount of compensation payable, on the basis of objective data enabling that amount to be calculated, within a period of 12 months, which was extended by an order of the Court of 11 July 1991 until 31 December 1991.

3 The Court also held that interest was payable on that sum at the rate of 8% from the date of the judgment.

4 By a letter lodged at the Court Registry on 21 November 1991, the Commission informed the Court that the negotiations between the parties had been successfully concluded and that the compensation agreed with the applicant had been paid to it in October 1991. By a letter lodged by fax at the Court Registry on 21 November 1991, the applicant confirmed that agreement concerning the amount of damages to be paid had been reached.

5 In those circumstances, the Court holds that with the exception of the question of costs, the dispute between the parties in this case has been resolved and consequently there is no longer any need to rule on the amount of compensation.

6 As regards costs, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs; under Article 69(6), where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are in the discretion of the Court.

7 Since the judgment of 26 June 1990 and the agreement reached by the parties upheld for the most part the applicant' s claims, the defendant institution must be ordered to pay the costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.

Operative part

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

Luxembourg, 17 January 1992