Case T-184/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), intellectual property, medical data, sale

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/19

Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors
against the European Parliament

The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
alleging:

(Case T-181/01)

(2001/C 303/32)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
in Brussels,
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date
unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of
administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to
accept her application for that post and, in so far as
necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
complaint taken on 28 May 2001;

— order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and
equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice publi-
shed on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the
order of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of
merit.

— failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;

— manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
the service and of Article 12 of
the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
munities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;

— breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
vacancy notice, and the legal maxim patere legem quam
ipse fecisti, in that the procedure currently applicable to
recruitment of staff
in the political groups was not
complied with in the present case;

— infringement of the principle of equality between men
and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
against because she was pregnant, and, second,
the
principle according to which, all things being equal,
preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the
position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
applicant, is a man;

— breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.

Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
rights connected with recruitment as a member of
the
temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
the reasons for its decisions.

Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-184/01)

(2001/C 303/33)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,

C 303/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

a company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of
the State of Delaware (USA), represented by Nicholas Levy,
John Temple Lang and Robert O’Donoghue, of Cleary, Gottlieb,
Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001,
ordering interim measures in case COMP D3/38044,

alternatively

— annul the decision insofar as it requires IMS Health to
license the 1 860 Brick Structure to companies currently
present on the German market for regional sales data
services and specifies the conditions under which the
negotiation of licence terms is to be conducted and
approved by the Commission,

and, in any event,

— order the Commission to pay IMS Health’s legal costs and

expenses in relation to this matter;

The Commission’s argument that the applicant’s copyright is a
prerequisite for entering the market
is, according to the
applicant, also incorrect and based on a misinterpretation of
the facts. The applicant states that its competitors are using a
different structure to present the information and that new-
comers in the market are free to develop their own structure.
The applicant claims that its ‘1 860 brick structure’ is not the
de facto industry standard, but merely the format used by the
leading data services provider.

The applicant further claims that there is no prima facie case to
justify the ordering of an interim measure. Also, the Com-
mission has erred in weighing the interests involved for the
purposes of ordering the interim measures. According to the
applicant, the grant of a licence would cause irreparable
damage to its business and render its intellectual property
rights devoid of all purpose.

The applicant further claims that the Commission has violated
the applicant’s rights of defence during the preliminary
procedure.

— adopt all such further measures as the Court may consider

appropriate.

Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
against the Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to
pharmaceutical companies. It has developed in that connection
a specific presentation of
information, called the
‘1 860 brick structure’, of which the applicant holds the
intellectual property rights in Germany.

this

The Commission has ordered an interim measure relating to a
proceeding against the applicant under Article 82 of the EC
Treaty, requiring the applicant to grant licences for the use of
the ‘1 860 brick structure’ to third parties currently present on
the German market for the provision of regional sales data.
That measure is currently contested by the applicant.

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
Commission has violated the protection granted by national
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The
right to refuse access to one’s intellectual property constitutes,
according to the applicant, the essence of intellectual property
rights. Such a refusal is not therefore contrary to Article 82
EC, unless it is accompanied by additional conduct. Such
conduct is, according to the applicant, not present in this case.

(Case T-189/01)

(2001/C 303/34)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision adopted by the Commission on
22 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
name should not be included on the list of grade A 5
officials considered the most deserving of promotion
under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
under the 1999 promotions procedure;

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations;