Case T-272/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), servant (EU), work contract

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/13

tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/
M.2903 have been met;

Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas and main arguments

in
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active,
in the area of telematic services for commercial
particular,
vehicles.
is challenging the Commission's decision of
It
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the
EEA Agreement.

The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for
telematic services even in the light of
the commitments.
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
ment contract be renewed;

— in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
(a) of the CEOS;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
ing,
to
all
EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;

reservations,

necessary

subject

to

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are
concerned.

Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-272/03)

(2003/C 251/26)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María

the Commission of

The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
extended by a year.

The applicant states that
the request was rejected by the
Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
account of the length of service as national expert on second-
ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
total in excess of 6 years.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
the European Communities,
in particular Article 8 thereof,
infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
entitled to take into account the period during which she had
worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
her total time at the Commission.

C 251/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

further alleges: breach of

the duty to give
The applicant
reasons for decisions, the duty to have regard for the welfare
the principle of sound administration;
of officials and of
manifest error of assessment; breach of
the principle of
legitimate expectations; and, finally, misuse of powers.

contested Decision. The opening of the procedure was not
properly based on public health considerations. Furthermore,
the referral and the opening of the procedure covered the
entire content of the SPC. This goes beyond the permissible
scope of an Article 30 referral, and such a procedure does not
allow for the adoption of a harmonised SPC. Moreover, the
opening of the procedure lacked proper reasoning.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that the harmonisation of
the SPCs in the contested Decision was illegal, since the
Commission did not have the power to adopt the Decision.
In the alternative,
the
Commission could, in principle, have harmonised the SPCs
for RENITEC, the Commission has failed to identify any public
health reasons justifying the harmonisation of the SPCs.

the applicants argue that even if

The applicants finally claim that the contested Decision is
illegal because binding time-limits of the Directive were not
observed and because the Commission and the Committee for
Proprietary Medicinal Products failed to provide sufficient rea-
soning.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products
for human use (OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67).

Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp &
Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-273/03)

(2003/C 251/27)

(Language of the case: English)

the Commission of

Sharp & Dohme B.V., Haalem,

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 1 August 2003 by Merck
Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon,
(United Kingdom),
(Netherlands),
Merck
Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, (France),
MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, (Germany), Merck Sharp
& Dohme (Italia) SpA., Rome, (Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme,
LDA, Paço de Arcos, (Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de
Espana S.A., Madrid, (Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.
H., Vienna, (Austria), and VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, (Greece),
represented by Mr G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are Marketing Authorization Holders of the
medicinal product RENITEC and associated trade names.
RENITEC contains the active ingredient ‘enalapril’ and is used
in treatment of hypertension and heart failure.

The applicants challenge the Commission Decision C(2003)
1752 of 21 May 2003 concerning the placing on the market
of medicinal products for human use containing the substance
‘enalapril’ by which the Commission harmonised the Summary
of Product Characteristics (‘SPC’) for RENITEC and associated
trade names. The contested Decision was adopted as a result of
a referral procedure under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC
of the European Parliament and the Council (1).

The applicants argue that the initiation of the Article 30
procedure was illegal and that that entails the illegality of the

Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin
Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-275/03)

(2003/C 251/28)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on
4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich
(Germany), represented by U. Gürtler,
lawyer. ECI Telecom
Ltd., Petach Tikva (Israel) was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision No 2055/2001 of

the Opposition
Division of the defendant of 27 August 2001 in opposi-
tion proceedings B 288680;