Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — Sinaga v Commission

(Joined Cases T-217/99, T-321/00 and T-222/01) (1)

(Sugar - Poseima Programme - Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 - Sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Definition of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community - Statement of reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

(2006/C 281/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas (Sinaga) SA (Ponta Delgada, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: in Case T-217/99, initially A. Alves Vieira and P. Oliver, then G. Berscheid, Agents, assisted by F. Costa Leite, lawyer, and in Cases T-221/01 and T-321/00, initially A. Alves Vieira and G. Berscheid, and then by G. Berscheid, assisted initially by N. Castro Marques, lawyer, and then F. Costa Leite, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/1999 of 30 June 1999 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the 1999/2000 marketing year for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 58); secondly, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/01 for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 (OJ 2000 L 167, p. 6) and also of the annex thereto and, thirdly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2001 of 28 June 2001 establishing the forecast supply balance for sugar for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 176, p. 12) inasmuch as they set the quantities of sugar considered necessary for supplying the Azores

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 333, 20.11.1999.