Case T-270/03: Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), designation of origin, meat product, swine

C 239/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board in competition
COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
request of 26 June 2002 that the selection board recon-
sider its decision of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
from the oral test in the competition pursuant to the
agreement reached between the Commission and the
applicant at the informal meeting held before the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 March 2002 in connection with the
action brought against the decision of 8 March 2000
(Case T-34/01);

and subversion of the effectiveness of the agreement between
the parties in the first case. Third, she alleges that the
Commission breached the principle of good management
practice and sound administration and the duty to have regard
for the welfare of officials. Finally, as her fourth plea in favour
of annulment, she relies on misuse of powers and alleged
breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 27
of the Staff Regulations and of the right to career advancement.

(1) Case T-34/01, notice published in OJ C 108, 7.4.2001, p. 28.

— annul,

to the extent necessary,

the
appointing authority of 13 June 2003, served on 20 June
2003, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

the decision of

Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the
Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the selection board in competition
COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 and admit the applicant to
the oral test in competition COM/PB/99;

— award damages of EUR 8 150,10;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

(Case T-270/03)

(2003/C 239/45)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant had brought an action before the Court of
First Instance against the decision of the selection board in
competition COM/PB/99 not to admit her to the oral test in
that competition (1). At the hearing in that case the parties
agreed on a settlement under which the applicant would be
sent corrected copies of her own answers and of the model
answers drawn up by selection board in the competition and
the applicant would pass on any comments to that selection
board. Following that agreement, the applicant discontinued
her first action. Having examined the copies sent to her the
applicant asked the selection board to reconsider its previous
decision and admit her to the oral test. The present case arises
over the refusal of that request.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl,
represented by L. Lavitola and C. Reggio d’Aci.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul that part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/
97 of 12 June 1997 which is prejudicial to the applicant’s
interests, together with annexed documents and, specifi-
cally, the rules governing the PGI ‘Prosciutto di Norcia’,
with reference to the unlawful provision (in Article 3)
that the pigs must come from Italian farms; make all
consequential orders, and order the Commission to pay
the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the rules
governing the work of a selection board, misinterpretation and
breach of the principle of non-discrimination. She also puts
forward a plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

The applicant company operates in the food distribution
sector. Through the company’s own supplier it purchased in
the European market from stock farms specialising in white
meat pork-meat intended for preparation and aging by com-
panies authorised for that purpose with reference to the
protected geographical indication (PGI) Prociutto di Norcia.

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/25

The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-
graphical
indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 (1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.

The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.

The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar
prohibition.

In support of its claim, the applicant argues:

— Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
ucts and foodstuffs (2);

Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-276/03)

(2003/C 239/46)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
the steps required to comply with the judgment of
5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Community law;

— order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
the date when the balance due is paid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection
of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
4 of the Treaty);

Pleas in law and main arguments

— breach of the principles of free competition and breach
of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour
national undertakings;

— the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which

led the Commission to approve the rules.

( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
judgment of 5 March 2002 (2) a further decision reducing the
amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
consistent with initial plans.

The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
subsidy.