Case C-182/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, industrial property, interpretation of the law, patent law, plant propagation, private limited company

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/47

Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the
judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth
Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-181/01 P)

(2001/C 200/83)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2001 by N,
represented by the lawyer G. Durazzo.

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded,

— set aside the contested judgment,

— grant the form of order sought in the application (1),

— order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances
and to reimburse the Joint Sickness Insurance Fund costs
incurred by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Distortion of the opinion of the Medical Committee (MC)
and infringement of the principle that measures must be
construed according to their actual content; materially
incorrect findings conflicting with the content of the said
opinion; infringement of the legal principle concerning
the interpretation of complex measures; infringement of
the principles expounded in case-law concerning the
conditions applicable to the propriety, interpretation and
content of opinions of medical committees;
illogical
and contradictory statement of reasons; breach of the
presumption of good faith; infringement of Article 19 of
the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
pational Disease (‘the Rules’).

— Infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of
Articles 2, 4, 7 and 19 of the Rules: in order to avoid
defining the incident at issue as an accident (that is to say,
HIV infection), the CM introduced into the debate the
concepts of consent to risk and irresistible violence and
the possibility of treating different conditions as being
the same and not giving rise to invalidity. The Court of
First Instance, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to
examine whether the appointing authority, in endorsing
the opinion of the MC, which refers in its conclusions to
the concept of ‘accident’, respected the meaning of the
relevant provisions, did not conclude, as it should have
done, that those assessments were incorrect.

— Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regu-
lations and of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Rules: The Court
of First Instance confined its examination to the issue of
transmission of the pathogen and took no account of the
view that the consequences of an accident are not limited
to its immediate effects but may manifest themselves at a
later time. Given that a particular pathology can derive
only from a specific cause, the proof lies in re ipsa: it is
sufficient to link the contamination with its cause. The
appellant observes, first, that the circumstances of his
contamination were purely sexual. He then observes that
even if the Court of First Instance’s argument that the CM
did not treat the tearing of the condom as the cause of
contamination or was not able to define such tearing
precisely were to be accepted — quod non — all the
other factual, chronological and medical circumstances
described by the MC add up to a presumption such that
the appellant’s infection can be classified as an accident.
In any event,
if the circumstances indicated do not
constitute an ‘occurrence’ of the kind referred to in
Article 2(1) of the Rules, they do add up to a ‘factor’ of
the kind mentioned in the alternative.

— Infringement of the rules governing the Commission’s
non-contractual liability (Article 288 EC): the conduct
and misconduct of the appointing authority,
if only
because of the fact that the disposal of the case was
thereby delayed, have had a psychological and stressful
impact on the appellant to an extent greater than that
which would be suffered by a person in perfect health or
in proceedings in an ordinary staff case. Since the damage
is not directly quantifiable, the appellant relies on a fair
assessment to be made by the Court.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
ichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger

(Case C-182/01)

(2001/C 200/84)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Gerichtshof of
European Communities by order of

C 200/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April
2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the
following questions:

1.

Can

(a)

(b)

(c)

a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-
man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the
meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can

such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
who are not shareholders in it but members of an
association which is a shareholder, and can

such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in
respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor
members of an association which is a shareholder?

2. Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the
holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,
irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that
he has carried out an act of use in respect of the
variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
question on his holding?

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.

(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-183/01)

(2001/C 200/85)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal
Adviser.

Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency

(Case C-184/01 P)

(2001/C 200/86)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.