Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2001 in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of a protected geographical indication — "Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest" — Measure of general application — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), agricultural holding, designation of origin, location of production

C 118/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
Martı´n against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

of 30 January 2001

in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000
— Registration of a protected geographical indication —
‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Measure of general
application — Inadmissibility)

(2001/C 118/109)

(Case T-29/01)

(2001/C 118/110)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
Martı´n, residing in Madrid, represented by Oscar Gonza´lez
Correas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2000

(Ref. 2974);

In Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste, established at Morlaas
(France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, lawyer with a right of
audience before the Conseil d’E´ tat and the Cour de Cassation,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and X. Lewis) —
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in
the Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 154, p. 5), as regards registration as
a protected geographical indication of the name ‘Canard à foie
Instance (Fifth
gras du Sud-Ouest’ — the Court of First
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı´a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 30 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs of
the Commission.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

— declare that the applicant is entitled to the full installation
allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations, as laid down in Article 71 of those Regu-
lations;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present dispute is a former Commission
official who is disputing the appointing authority’s decision to
refuse him both an installation allowance for settling in
Belgium, on the ground that he was reinstated in service
following the withdrawal of his previous status of permanent
invalidity, and a resettlement allowance for Spain after his
service terminated. The applicant claims that he is entitled
to those allowances in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5(1), the first paragraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a)
and (b) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

In support of his claims, the applicant submits:

— that a finding of invalidity is a matter governed by the
rules and depends not on the individual but on an
objective situation;

— that, according to settled case-law, an established official
is entitled to the disputed allowances even when the place
in which he has settled has not changed;