Case T-267/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU)

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/23

the recitals to the contested decision is inadequate. The
publication of the standards in the Official Journal is likewise
defective as no reference is made to the fact that the standards,
for the most part, and their annexes (with the exception of
Annex ZA) are not binding and that thermal
installation
products only need to comply with Annex ZA in order to bear
the EC mark. As regards the substance, the applicants are of
the opinion that the standards in question are incomplete,
unclear, imprecise and contradictory and that the system of
standards is incoherent. Moreover, the use of the EC mark is
misleading since it does not prove that the product complies
with all European standards but rather only with Annex ZA to
those standards. The contested decision thus fails to meet the
requirements of Directive 89/106,
the principle of pro-
portionality (third paragraph of Article 5 EC) and the require-
ments of consumer protection (Article 95(3) EC).

( 1) OJ C 358 of 15 December 2001, p. 9.
( 2) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ L 40
of 11 February 1989, p. 12) as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC
(OJ L 220 of 30 August 1993, p. 1).

Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-265/03)

(2003/C 239/43)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel
GmbH, Hamburg (Germany), represented by Dr W.P. Wasch-
mann, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 23 May 2003 concerning retention of a
sum of EUR 346 221,20;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of
artificial fertiliser to North Korea, the applicant was awarded
the contract by the Commission. Since the artificial fertiliser
supplied by the applicant was late in reaching its destination,
the Commission withheld from the applicant a sum of
EUR 346 221,20 and refused, finally by letter of 23 May 2003,
to pay the sum concerned to the applicant.

force majeure and, consequently,

The applicant submits that the delay in delivering the fertiliser
can be attributed to restrictions on the export of fertiliser from
China, where it intended to procure the fertiliser for export.
As those restrictions were wholly unforeseeable, they may be
regarded as a case of
in
accordance with Article 22(4) of Regulation No 2519/97 (1),
no sum may be retained. The applicant also submits that no
loss was suffered as a result of the late delivery and that
retention of the amount is therefore disproportionate to the
failure to observe the delivery period and is in breach of the
Community-law principle of proportionality. The retention
also infringes provisions of the Belgian Civil Code, since the
Commission did not previously expressly call on the applicant
to fulfil that contractual obligation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997
laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be
supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Com-
munity food aid (OJ L 346 of 17.12.1997, p. 23).

Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato
(Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-267/03)

(2003/C 239/44)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, lawyers.

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.