Case T-429/05: Action brought on  7 December 2005  — Artegodan v Commission
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, indemnification, market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry

C 48/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

Action brought on 7 December 2005 — Artegodan v
Commission

(Case T-429/05)

(2006/C 48/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Artegodan GmbH (Lüchow, Germany) (represented
by: U. Doepner, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In the reasons given in its action the applicant submits that, by
reason of Decision C(2000) 453, the Commission acted unlaw-
fully and thereby infringed various provisions
serving to
protect the applicant. The applicant claims that its basic right
to carry on the business which it established (company and
property rights) was infringed. In addition, it alleges infringe-
ment of Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC. (2) Furthermore, the
applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of
proportionality and the basic principles of sound administra-
tion.

The applicant submits that it suffered harm as a result of the
decision in question and
implementation thereof.
According to the applicant, the defendant should pay to it
compensation in regards of the infringements identified above.

the

(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or admin-
istrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxima-
tion of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

— Order the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 1 430 821,36 plus a lump-sum interest payment of
8 % for the period from the date of the judgment to that of
full payment of the sum due;

— Declare that

the defendant

is under an obligation to
compensate the applicant for all future damage which it
will
incur as a result of marketing expenses which are
necessary to re-establish the market position which the
pharmaceutical product Tenuate retard enjoyed before the
defendant withdrew the authorisation for that product;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation from the Commission under
the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC
and a declaration that the defendant is under an obligation to
compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will
incur as a result of marketing expenses.

In relation to the background to the dispute,
it should be
pointed out that the applicant is the proprietor of the legal
rights of the authorisation for the pharmaceutical preparation
Tenuate retard, which contains amfepramone. On 9 March
2000, the defendant adopted, on the basis of Article 15a of
Directive 75/319/EEC, (1) Decision C(2000) 453 concerning the
withdrawal of marketing authorisations of medicinal products
for human use containing ‘amfepramone’. By decision of 11
April 2000, the competent German authorities implemented
that latter Commission decision. By judgment of 26 November
2002 in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00,
T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 the Court of First Instance
declared Commission Decision C(2000) 453 invalid. The
appeal lodged by the Commission against that judgment was
dismissed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case C-39/03 P.

Action brought on 5 December 2005 — Cerafogli and
Poloni v ECB

(Case T-431/05)

(2006/C 48/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Germany) and Paolo Poloni
(represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

(Frankfurt am Main,
(Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the applicants' pay slips of February 2005 as replaced
in May 2005 and the defendant's letter of 15 February
2005;