Case T-383/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd., against the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Community, United Kingdom, United States, appeal to the Court (EU), export restriction, packaging product

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/21

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Council Decision of 28 September 2000
amounting to a refusal to adopt a Maximum Residue
Limit under Regulation No 2377/90, with regard to
recombinant bovine somatotrophin;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

Council.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a life sciences company, in the business of
developing products to meet the growing global need for
food. It has developed a veterinary medicinal product called
sometribove. This product is classified as a recombinant bovine
somatotrophin (‘BST’) and when administered to dairy cows
has the effect of increasing their milk production. Before
veterinary products, such as sometribove, can be put on the
Community market, a maximum residue limit (‘MRL’) must be
established, in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1).

that

the fact

On 14 January 1997, the Commission decided to reject the
request for the inclusion of sometribove (bovine somatropine)
in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, in spite
of
the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Products (‘CVMP’) had come to the conclusion that it was not
necessary for the protection of public health to establish MRL
for BST and had recommended the inclusion of this product
in the list of substances not subject to MRL in Annex II. This
decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance.

As the result of the judgment, the Commission decided to send
the file back to the CVMP for a new opinion on BST. In July
1999, the CVMP re-evaluated BST taking into account all
the latest available scientific information and confirmed its
previous opinion that residues of BST are safe and that BST
should therefore be included in Annex II. On 13 July 2000,
the Commission submitted to the Council its final proposition
for inclusion of BST in Annex II. On 28 September 2000, the
Council decided not to adopt the Commission’s proposal. It is
this decision that is challenged by the applicant in the present
case.

The applicant contends that the contested decision should be
annulled for the following reasons:

1.

Infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 2377/90.
The applicant maintains that:

(a)

the Council could not reject
the Commission’s
proposal in the absence of any new information or
any reassessment of existing information on the
bases of which the opinion of the CVMP might be
called into question;

(b)

the Council wilfully disregarded the findings of the
CVMP.

2.

Breach of principle of proportionality in light of the
special circumstances of the case, namely:

(a)

(b)

(c)

that there is no scientific evidence of a risk to human
health;

that milk or milk products are imported from third
countries where BST is administered to cows; and

any public-health objective has already been more
than adequately assured through the adoption of a
ban on the marketing of BST.

3. Wrongful or disproportionate application of the pre-

cautionary principle.

(1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd.,
against the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-383/00)

(2001/C 61/40)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union, the
European Parliament and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 22 December 2000 by
Beamglow Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of
the United Kingdom, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Community, as represented here
by the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, as jointly and severally liable, to repair the
damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
unlawful behaviour of the European Community and to
set the amount of compensation at GBP 2 042 000 for
the period up to December 2000 plus GBP 79 000 per
month from that date to the date of judgment or any
other amount reflecting the actual damage suffered by
the applicant as established by it in the course of the
proceedings;

C 61/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

— order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other
appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;

— order the European Community, as represented here
by the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.

The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %
ad valorem duties.

The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international
obligations.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
respect of his pension rights;

— rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
the European Investment Bank;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.

The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
reimbursement of his pension rights.

The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
in April 1993.

Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
against the European Investment Bank

Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
Gonçalves against the European Parliament

(Case T-385/00)

(2001/C 61/41)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-386/00)

(2001/C 61/42)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.