Case T-251/03: Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), antibiotic, veterinary drug, withdrawal from the market

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/19

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Partial admission of
the oppo-
sition and allowance to proceed
to registration of the Community
trade mark for
the following
goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing
gum.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Société des Produits Nestlé.

Pleas in law:

According to the applicant there
is no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks and it
refers in this respect to a judgment
of the Superior Court of justice in
Madrid that allegedly stated that
Menorquina was not entitled to
oppose the use of the word mark
‘POLO’ in Spain.

Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-250/03)

(2003/C 239/37)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
against her suspension from her duties following her removal
from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.

This application is based on the following elements:

— Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
Staff Regulation.

— Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation,

in the
absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
urgent need to exclude her from the working place.

— Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.

— Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.

Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
+ Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.

(Case T-251/03)

(2003/C 239/38)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her
duties;

— award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money
to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such
other rate as may be fixed by the Court;

— award her the costs of the present action.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.

C 239/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Decision requesting the Member
States to suspend marketing authorizations for products
containing benzathine penicillin under the referral pro-
cedure of Article 35 of Directive 2001/82;

— alternatively declare the contested Decision non-existant;

— order the Defendant to bear the costs.

— The procedure provided for in Article 35 of Directive
2001/82 can only affect and have an impact on the
national marketing authorisation directly concerned by
it.

— In the present case there should not be ‘Community

interest’ justifying a referral.

(1) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
6 November 2001, on the Community code relating to veterinary
national products (OJ L 311, of 28 November 2001, p. 1),
which consolidates and replaces Council Directive 81/851/EEC of
28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317
of 6 November 1981, p. 1, and the subsequent modifications).

(2) OJ C 109, of 4.5.2002, p. 51.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present case are all companies holding
national marketing authorisations issued by national com-
petent authorities for a veterinary medicinal product contain-
ing the pharmacologically active substance ‘bezathine penicil-
lin’. That substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary
injectable medicinal products for food producing animals.

The present application has been lodged against the Decision
of the Commission of 22 April 2003, ordering a suspension of
the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products
containing the substance benzathine penicillin on the basis of
Article 35 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1) (former Article 20 of
Directive 81/851) in the framework of a so-called ‘Community
interest referral procedure’ initiated by the Irish authorities.
The applicants in the present case introduced an action
for annulment against the Decision introducing the referral
procedure on 25 January 2002. The application, which is still
pending, was registered under Roll No T-19/02 (2).

In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:

— The Commission cannot oblige the Member States to
suspend national marketing authorisations of products
containing benzathine penicillin under the procedure
contained in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 as this
Article does not provide the Commission with the power
to adopt decisions harmonising national marketing auth-
orisations.

Action brought on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals
Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-253/03)

(2003/C 239/39)

(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 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), and Akcros Chemi-
cals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), represented by C. Swaak
and R. Mollica, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Rejection

Decision;

— annul, under Article 231 EC, the Rejection Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Even if one were to accept that the procedure contained
in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 could lead to a binding
decision of the Commission, such procedure would at
most apply to veterinary medicinal products authorised
under the mutual recognition procedure.

In February 2003, representatives of the Commission perfor-
med an investigation on the basis of Article 14(3) of Regulation
17/62 with regard to the applicants in Eccles, Manchester. In
the course of the investigation, the Commission reviewed,
took copies of and seized several documents (1).