Case T-311/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), advertising, public health, sponsorship, tobacco

C 275/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
Director removing one of the investigators from the
Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures
adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;

— annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;

— annul

the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
adopting that report or its conclusions;

the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
investigator who remained authorised.

(1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
of
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.

— annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of
OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
of 4 February 2003 against that report;

Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
of the European Union

— order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to
his career;

— order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the
administrative complaints against the contested decision
and report;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.

(Case T-311/03)

(2003/C 275/81)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
Nürburgring GmbH,
represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
Dr M.A. Dauses.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States relating to the advertising and
sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
in particular, void;

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of

The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
Nürburgring.

15.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/49

The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban
on sponsoring.

The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.

Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the
directive is a disproportionate measure,
in view both of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.

(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR

I-8419.

Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-313/03)

(2003/C 275/82)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
2001;

Instance,

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First
together with the expenses
necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
for service,
travel and subsistence expenses and the
remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
those rules.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.

Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-314/03)

(2003/C 275/83)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.

— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
overpaid to it;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs.