Case T-241/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), environmental protection, market approval, marketing standard, plant health legislation, plant health product, protected area

C 217/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

In support of their application the applicants submit that the
contested provisions violate Directive 91/414. Article 8 of this
directive provides
that Member States may continue to
authorise, for a 12-year period, substances which had already
been on the market two years after the notification of the direc-
tive. Atrazine is such a substance. However, if in the meantime
such substances have not been included in Annex I,
then
according to the applicants there is no legal basis in Directive
91/414 for allowing continued use after the expiry of the 12-
year transitional period. The applicants thus submit that by the
contested provisions the Commission created a new basis for a
continued authorisation of Atrazine, even though it had no
power to do so under Directive 91/414.

The applicants also claim that the Commission violated Direc-
tive 92/43 (3), by not
including in the contested decision
further restrictions related to the Special Areas of conservation,
more specifically the Natura 2000 network of article 3 of
Directive 92/43.

(1) OJ L 78 16.3.2004, p. 53.
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal
L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L
206 , 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.

Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/04)

(2004/C 217/53)

acquiring undertakings
in financial difficulties, which are
subject to extraordinary administration, have at least 1 000
employees and prior to 30 April 2003 entered into a collective
agreement with the Ministry of Labour for approval of the
transfer of workers, as well as for undertakings in financial
difficulty subject to extraordinary administration having at least
1 000 employees and subject to transfer.

In support of its claims the applicant State maintains that:

— the aid at issue does not constitute a measure of a general
nature intended to promote employment and, as such, does
not distort or threaten to distort competition; accordingly,
it does not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1)EC.

— the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the aid
is negated by the period of validity of a measure justified by
the need to confront a temporary situation or grave crisis
in employment and limited to the period of time strictly
necessary for tackling it, in accordance with the principle of
proportionality.

— there has been an infringement of the guidelines concerning
State aid for recovery and restructuring,
in
regard to the sale of Ocean SpA to Brandt Italia, point 100
of
those guidelines expressly refers to non-notified aid,
stating that the Commission must examine the compat-
ibility with the common market of any aid in favour of
recovery and restructuring granted without the Commis-
sion's authorisation.

inasmuch as,

— the Commission has infringed its Regulation (EC) No
2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employ-
ment (1), inasmuch as it did not consider the aid measure at
issue to be compatible with it.

(Language of the case: Italian)

(1) OJ 2002 L 331, p. 3.

the European Commission was brought
An action against
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by State
Advocate Danilo del Gaizo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the contested decision null and void;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is

action

directed

This
against Commission Decision
C(2004)930 fin of 30 March 2004 relating to Proceeding No
C62/2003 (ex NN 7/2003) declaring incompatible with the
common market State aid in respect of urgent measures
in the
concerning employment
Decree-Law of 14 February 2003 converted into Law No 81 of
17 April 2003. In particular the Commission found that the
aid measure at issue confers a financial benefit on persons

to which Italy gave effect

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-
mental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-241/04)

(2004/C 217/54)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by by European Envir-
onmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium and Stichting Natuur en
Milieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den
Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— Partially

annul Commission Decision 2004/247/EC (1)

insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not
to
amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include
‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of
Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products
containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by
Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the
Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protec-
tion products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but
rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June
2007 and subject
to conditions aimed at minimising risk
certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the
preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transi-
tional measures through the current absence of efficient alter-
natives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas
and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/
04.

(1) OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50.
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal
L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit
against Europol

(Case T-244/04)

(2004/C 217/55)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, residing in Scheveningen (Nether-
lands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Europol's decision of 19 May 2003 together with the

decision of 19 March 2004 on her complaint;

— order Europol to pay the costs.

The applicant contests the defendant's decision not to consider
her for a number of vacant posts. The applicant submits that
the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment.

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-246/04)

(2004/C 217/56)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunen-
burger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by E. Boigelot,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted by Mr David O'Sullivan, Secre-
tary General, on 11 September 2003 in his capacity as
appeal assessor and adversely affecting the applicant in that
it confirms and definitively approves the applicant's Career
Development Report for the period 1 July 2001 to 21
December 2002;

— annul that report;

— annul

the decision expressly the applicant's complaint,
lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions on 9 December 2003 and registered as No R/711/03
and seeking annulment of the contested decision;

— award the applicant damages for non-material harm and for
adversely affecting his career, owing to the substantial irre-
gularities and also to the significant delay in drawing up
that report, damages assessed on an equitable basis at
EUR 4 000, subject to such amount being increased or
reduced in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and of
Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the
implementing provisions relating to the latter article
general
adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also claims
that there has been a breach of the rights of defence, of the
principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard
for his welfare and of the principle of equal treatment, and also
a manifest error of assessment.