Case T-382/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, United States, action for annulment (EU), drafting of EU law, hormone, veterinary medicinal product

C 61/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.

The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures
are of direct and individual concern to them.

The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of
competition on the markets concerned.

Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-376/00)

(2001/C 61/38)

(Language of the case: French)

— award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
future career;

— award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
compensation for the material damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
lost an opportunity of promotion;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
transport’.

In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
in law:

— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of

the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;

— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
principle of equal treatment;

— a manifest error of assessment in the present case;

— misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the

Staff Regulations.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and
other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade
A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;

— annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application

of the applicant for the post in question;

Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
Company against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-382/00)

(2001/C 61/39)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.

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;