Case T-369/03: Action brought on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical B.V., Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Resinall Europe B.V.B.A. and Cray Valley Iberica S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), approximation of laws, dangerous substance, labelling, packaging

C 7/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in

these proceedings.

the facts,

— a combination of an error in law and a manifest error of
assessment of
inasmuch as the contested
decision does not consider the work carried out by him
for the Delegation of the Autonomous Community of
Murcia in Brussels ‘work done for [a] State’, in the sense
recognised in the Staff Regulations as an exception to the
reference period. In the alternative, he claims that the
Council wrongly concluded in the contested decision that
the applicant’s centre of interest and habitual residence
were in Brussels and not in Murcia;

— infringement of the principle of equal treatment,

in
the appointing authority discriminated between

that
essentially identical personal situations.

Action brought on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical
B.V., Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Resinall Europe B.V.B.A.
and Cray Valley Iberica S.A. against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-369/03)

(2004/C 7/77)

(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 29 October 2003 by Arizona
Chemical B.V., Almere, the Netherlands, Eastman Belguim
B.V.B.A., Kallo, Belguim, Resinall Europe B.V.B.A., Brugge,
Belguim and Cray Valley Iberica S.A., Madrid, Spain , represent-
ed by Claudio Mereu and Koen Van Maldegem, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision D(2003)430245

of

20 August 2003;

— declare that the rosin entry in Annex I of Council Directive
67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
substances, is unlawful;

— in the alternative, declare that the rosin Annex I entry is
inapplicable to the Applicants under Article 241 EC
Treaty;

— compensate Applicants for damages suffered as a result of
the adoption of the contested Decision, in the provisional
amount of EUR 1; or,
in the alternative declare the
Commission liable for imminent damage foreseeable with
sufficient certainty, even if the damage cannot be precisely
assessed;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Contested Decision in this case rejected the applicants
request to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance listed in
Annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on
the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
of dangerous substances (1).

that

In support of their application the applicants submit that the
the
Contested Decision is unlawful on the grounds that
classification of rosin was decided on the basis of test results
relating to a different substance, namely oxidised rosin. They
the classification in question is not
further submit
supported by the conclusion of
the scientific assessment
conducted under Directive 67/548 and was decided on the
wrong premise that rosin always produces oxidised rosin and
that the latter causes skin sensitisation under normal handling
and use. The applicants also contend that the Contested
Decision is unlawful because it is based on the ‘precautionary
principle’, which does not apply to hazard-based decisions,
that the Contested Decision violates the EC Treaty as it fails to
consider new, state-of-the-art scientific evidence on oxidised
rosin and that, finally, the Contested Decision also violates
fundamental principles of Community law, more especially
the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and
proportionality.

(1) OJ P 196 , 16.08.1967, p. 1-98, English special edition: Series I

Chapter 1967, p. 234.

Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Yves Mahieu
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-372/03)

(2004/C 7/78)

(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 10 November 2003 by Yves
Mahieu, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel,
lawyer.