Case T-416/06: Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission
Date: 2006-12-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fruit vegetable, marketing, plant health control, plant health product, stone fruit

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/43

— aside from other considerations, in the case in question, the
unacceptable delay in communicating the decision can in no
way be imputed to the appellant. On this point, too, the
Tribunal failed to carry out an adequate evaluation — even
in terms of procedural correctness — of the contentions of
the defendant concerning the difficulty of identifying the
official's place of residence.

— that, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of bringing
the action the appellant had already retired, he had an
interest in bringing proceedings to establish the unlawful-
ness of the transfer in question and he continues to possess
such an interest, in that his application for compensation for
non-material and professional damage is predicated upon
establishing the unlawfulness of the contested measure.

Appeal brought on 29 December 2006 by De Smedt
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 19 October 2006 in Case F-59/05, De Smedt v Commis-
sion

(Case T-415/06 P)

(2007/C 42/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elisabeth de Smedt
(represented by L. Vogel and R. Kechiche, lawyers)

(Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annulment in full of the judgment under appeal, delivered in
19 October 2006 by the Second Chamber of
the Civil
Service Tribunal, notified by registered letter of 19 October
2006, by which the action brought by the appellant on
8 July 2005 was dismissed;

— grant to the appellant the forms of order sought in the

action brought by her on 8 July 2005;

— order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of
the action pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Proce-
dure,
including the expenses necessarily incurred for the
purposes of the proceedings, and, in particular, the costs of
having an address for service, travel and accommodation
expenses and lawyers' fees, pursuant to Article 91(b) of the
Rules of Procedure.

decision of the Commission of 21 March 2005 fixing the classi-
fication and remuneration of the applicant, who was previously
an auxiliary agent
recruited as a contractual agent, and,
secondly, payment of damages.

In support of her application for the annulment of that judg-
ment, the appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal, the
first of which is based on infringement of Article 80(3) of the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Commu-
nities (CEOS) (1), together with a manifest error of assessment.
The appellant argues that, in rejecting the first plea in law under
her original application on the ground that the Commission
was obliged to follow a timescale laid down in terms of Regu-
lation No 723/2004 (2),
the former
temporary staff status by the new contractual agent status, the
Civil Service Tribunal allowed the Commission to disregard all
preliminary procedures relating to the recruitment of contrac-
tual agents, in breach of Article 80(3) of the CEOS.

for the replacement of

The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of the
principle of non-discrimination, a failure to state adequate
reasons and a failure to address the appellant's written pleadings
in rejecting the second plea in law of her initial application,
which was founded on the discriminatory situation in which the
appellant was required to work, by comparison with other
persons carrying out duties identical to her own, in the same
department of the Commission. The appellant objects that the
Civil Service Tribunal failed to provide a satisfactory response to
her submissions in that regard and did no more than reject the
plea, using an abstract form of words.

(1) The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Commu-
nities were laid down under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom,
ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down
the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS (OJ 1968 L 6, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Commu-
nities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the
European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Sumitomo
Chemical Agro Europe v Commission

(Case T-416/06)

(2007/C 42/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 19 October 2006, the annulment of which is
sought by this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the
action brought by the appellant seeking, first, annulment of the

Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint Didier,
France)
(represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 42/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant, if necessary by means of an interlocu-
tory order, to correct the material mistake in Annex I, Part
A, and replace ‘0.75 g’ with ‘0.75 Kg’;

— order the annulment of the following provisions of Directive

2006/132:

Article 3(2):

‘by 30 June 2008’

Annex I:

‘30 June 2008’

Annex I, Part A:

‘on the following crops’

Annex I, Part B:

‘— cucumbers

in greenhouses

(closed

hydroponic systems),

— plums (for processing)’

‘Member States shall request the submis-
sion of
further studies to address the
potential endocrine disrupting properties
of procymidone within two years after
the adoption of the Test Guidelines on
endocrine disruption by the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD). They shall ensure that the
notifier at whose request procymidone
has been included in this Annex provide
such studies to the Commission within
two years of the adoption of the above
test guidelines.’

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicant seeks the partial annul-
ment of Commission Directive 2006/132 amending Directive
91/414 to include procymidone as active substance (2) insofar
as this directive i) only provides for a limited inclusion of procy-
midone in Annex I to Directive 91/414, ii) provides for specific
conditions on the authorised use and iii)
foresees a limited
period of 18 months for the validity of the limited inclusion in
Annex I.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested directive violates Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 5(1) and (4)
of Directive 91/414. Furthermore, the applicant contends that
the contested directive is inconsistent with Article 5(5) of Direc-
tive 91/414 and that the Commission therefore exceeded the
limits of its discretion.

measures as they were proposed to the Standing Committee on
the Food Chain and Animal Health and the Council without
amending them before their final adoption.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested directive
violates the applicant's legitimate expectations, as well as the
principles of sound administration, subsidiarity, proportionality,
legal certainty, equal treatment and excellence and independence
of
the
contested directive is not providing sufficient justification and
that the duty to state reasons is therefore infringed.

scientific advice. The applicant also contends

that

the applicant

Finally,
the contested directive
encroaches upon its right to conduct business activities and
interferes with its right of property.

submits

that

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

(2) Commission Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as
active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22).

Action brought on 5 January 2007 — Sanofi-Aventis v
OHIM — AstraZeneca (EXANTIN)

(Case T-4/07)

(2007/C 42/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R.
Gilbey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZe-
neca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the First Board of Appeal dated
10 October 2006, case R 1302/2005-1, and uphold the
appellant's contention that there exists a likelihood of confu-
sion between the marks in conflict;

The applicant moreover claims that the contested directive is
procedurally flawed as the Commission is obliged to adopt the

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

bear the costs of the appellant in the present instance.