Case T-381/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de roquefort against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), designation of origin, location of production, product designation, sheep's milk cheese

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/31

basis for its assessment. The main competitor would obtain a
monopoly position if the applicant were to disappear. In
examining the applicant’s prospects of profitability, the Com-
mission overlooked the commitment of a private investor, the
applicant’s latest restructuring plan, essential testimony in
economic reports, and the positive development of the appli-
cant.

The applicant further argues that the Commission wrongly
made a preliminary decision in an earlier proceeding about the
adjustment of the purchase price (1), and thereby artificially
divided its examination, which related to the restructuring as a
whole. The opening of a further formal examination procedure,
relating only to the loan from TAB and the changing of the
security, was out of time. The principle of sound administration
required the Commission to assess the whole restructuring
plan as a unity and in its proper context.

The applicant argues that the Commission infringed its defence
rights. Because of the splitting of the procedure, the applicant
was able to adopt a position on only part of the measures, and
the Commission wrongly denied the applicant’s applications
for inspection of the files and a proper legal hearing. The
Commission infringed the principle of impartiality by not
giving the applicant and the German Government the oppor-
tunity to comment on the statement of a competitor, which
the Commission had obtained by putting questions to that
competitor.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has not
proved that repayment of the alleged aid in this case would be
appropriate to restore the previous position. Repayment was a
sanction going beyond the limited powers of the Commission.

( 1) Commission Decision K(2001) 1549 of 12.6.2001 on State aid
by Germany in favour of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
against which the applicant brought an action before the Court of
First Instance (Case T-198/01, OJ 2001 C 303, p. 25).

Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Confédération
générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industri-
els de roquefort against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-381/02)

(2003/C 55/82)

(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 18 December 2002 by Confédé-
ration générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des
industriels de roquefort, established in Millau (France), rep-
resented by Michel-Jean Jacquot and Olivier Prost, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation No 1829/2002 of
14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
(EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an inter-branch association which claims to
group together and represent the interests of all producers of
Feta made from ewe’s milk.

The contested regulation reserves the name ‘Feta’ — a protected
designation of origin — for Greek producers. The Court of
Justice of the European Communities had already annulled, in
1996, a Commission regulation on the same subject (2).

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant argues
that no justification or reasons are stated for the choice of the
‘simplified’ procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation
No 2081/92 (3). In order to have recourse to that procedure, it
is necessary, not only for an application by the national
authorities for a legally protected name in the applicant State
to exist before the entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92,
but also for that name to be neither legally protected in
countries other than the applicant Member State nor in use in
those countries. The term ‘Feta’ was not legally protected in
Greece — the applicant State — in the sense intended by the
legislation at the time of the entry into force of Regulation
No 2081/92. By contrast, not only was that same term legally
protected in Denmark before the entry into force of Regulation
No 2081/92, but also its use was widespread in France and
throughout the world.

it

The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to fulfil
its obligations in the analysis of whether the term ‘Feta’ is
infringed Article 3(1) of Regulation
generic and that
No 2081/92 by the fact that it once again did not take
sufficient account of certain factors: in particular, the existing
situation in the Member State in which the name originates,
the existing situation in other Member States, and the relevant
national and Community laws. In addition, the applicant is of
the opinion that the Commission infringed Article 2(3) of
Regulation No 2081/92.

C 55/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

the applicant alleges breach of

Finally,
the principle of
proportionality and breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations based on the existence of Community
financing for the production and marketing of ‘Feta’.

( 1) OJ L 277, p. 10.
( 2) Judgment in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96

Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.

( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-384/02)

(2003/C 55/83)

(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 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-
Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the head of the Administration of
Individual Rights unit of the Adminstration Directorate-
General of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002
refusing the applicant the second half of the installation
allowance;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 Sep-
tember 2002 rejecting the complaint through official
channels of 9 May 2002 against the abovementioned
decisions;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant the second
half of his installation allowance together with default
interest at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from
11 April 2001 and until payment is made in full;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official at the Commission in Brussels. In
June 2000, on taking up his appointment, he settled in
Brussels. His spouse subsequently settled in Brussels with him
and organised the removal of the family, which took place on
11 April 2001, whilst continuing to be present at her
former home in Madrid, where their youngest daughter was
completing her secondary education. Consequently, his spouse
and daughter did not join him until July 2001, which they
declared to the Privileges and Immunities service.

By the contested decision, the Commission refused to pay the
applicant the second half of the installation allowance.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads an error of law
and a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant,
the administration attached decisive importance to the declar-
ations made by his spouse and daughter to the Privileges and
Immunities service. The applicant states that the concept of
installation is a factual concept and that the text of the Staff
Regulations does not prescribe any particular mode of proof.

The applicant also pleads an error of law and an omission of
essential facts, since the administration considered the period
laid down by Articles 5(4) and 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations to be a mandatory time-limit and did not consider
the possibility of waiving it by reason of the complainant’s
establishment as an official on taking up his appointment and
the fact that his daughter was unable to join her parents in
Brussels before the end of the school year.

Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G.
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-386/02)

(2003/C 55/84)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G., whose registered
office is in Madrid, represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri
and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez.