Case T-397/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commissioner, action for annulment (EU), cheese, designation of origin, location of production, product designation

C 70/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

— access, permission to copy and to produce before
the courts all documents relating to the project
PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or
indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
list enclosed with the originating request together
with all the elements of the internal investigation
file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
the audit report of 21 December 2000;

— financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire
cost of defending the action seeking compensation
for non-material, professional and material damage
suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
against her;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-397/02)

(2003/C 70/40)

(Language of the case: Danish)

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 2002 by Arla Foods,
Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
represented by Georg Lett, advokat.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Court should:

The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a
contract for the provision of statistical services.

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation No 2081/92.

According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.

In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission
the Staff
documents and infringement of Article 19 of
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and
permission to produce such documents before the courts.

( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February
1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,
58).

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 (2) introduced
Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.

The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
made public.

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/25

The applicants further claim that ‘feta’ does not fulfil the
conditions for registration pursuant to Council Regulation
No 2081/92. ‘Feta’ is a generic term which cannot be protected
under that regulation. ‘Feta’ is a generally used term of reference
for a given dairy product. The evolution in the Greek legislation
shows that ‘feta’ has been construed as a generic term in
Greece as well, just as the Council and the Commission in
their formulations have treated feta as a generic product.
Furthermore, Greek feta is not one uniform type of product,
leading to the conclusion that the aim is in reality the
protection of Greek cheese per se.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the registration of the term
‘feta’ is contrary to the principle laid down in Article 7(4) of
Council Regulation No 2081/92, fundamental principles of EC
law and therefore the Treaty, including Article 12 EC and
Article 34(3) EC, and also the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle.

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard
to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p 10).

( 2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1.
( 4) Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and

Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.

Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acqui-
sition Corp. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-6/03)

(2003/C 70/41)

(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 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings,
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of
America, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem,
United States of America R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International,
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of America and RJR
Acquisition Corp, Wilmington, United States of America,
represented by Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery and Ms Francesca
Marchini Camia, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible;

— annul the Commission Decision resulting in the filing of
the third complaint (1) on 30 October 2002 before the
New York District Court against
the applicants, as
publicly announced by the Commission in its Press
Release IP/05/1592 of 31 October 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
proceedings, including the costs of the applicants and
any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
by the Commission on behalf of the European Community
and a number of Member States before a United States court
seeking treble and punitive damages, equitable relief and
various types of injunctive relief for the applicants’ alleged
participation in money laundering schemes.

The applicants submit that the European Community, rep-
resented by the Commission, lacks the competence to adopt
the contested act and to bring action on its own behalf and on
behalf of Member States for the following reasons:

— Article 2 EC does not confer any specific and autonomous

powers upon the institutions;

— Article 281 EC merely states that the EC enjoys legal
personality, without addressing any issue of competence;

— Article 282 EC does not confer any competence on the
EC, represented by the Commission to bring an action
before the court of a non-Member State;

— Article 280 EC does not grant the EC, represented by the
Commission, any competence to bring legal action for
the protection of the Community’s financial
interests.
Article 280 only grants limited competence on the
Community to ensure that Member States introduce
measures that are effective to protect the Community’s
financial interest and to assist the Member States in this
task;

— even if one assumes that Article 280 EC grants such
competence on the EC, the contested act does not fulfil