Case T-120/08: Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Arch Chemicals Inc. and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical product, data protection, marketing, plant health product, restriction on competition

C 128/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission

Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Arch Chemicals Inc.
and Others v Commission

(Case T-50/08)

(2008/C 128/73)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case T-120/08)

(2008/C 128/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: C. Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Parties

Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, United States), Arch
Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, United Kingdom), Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH (Kirchheimbo-
landen, Germany), Rhodia UK Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom),
Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and
Troy Chemical Company BV (Maassluis, Netherlands)
(repre-
sented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought

— hold that the present application to set aside the judgment
of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible
and well founded;

— annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service

Tribunal in Case F-34/06;

— determine the financial compensation for the non-material
harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;

— make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil
Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in ruling upon his application
for annulment of his career development report for 2004 and
of
the appointing authority rejecting the
complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations.

the decision of

More specifically, the appellant contends, first, that that the CST
the Staff Regulations and the
misinterpreted Article 43 of
general provisions implementing that Article. Second, the CST
misinterpreted the form of order sought by the application
upon which it ruled, and it appraised the evidence wrongly.
Third, the CST relied on contradictory reasoning in dismissing
fundamental procedural
his application, with the result
rights enjoyed by him were infringed. Fourth, the CST erred in
refusing to rule on a particular claim or otherwise employed
insufficient reasoning and, finally, it wrongly dismissed part of
the application for lack of precision.

that

— to declare the present application admissible and well
to join the questions of
founded, or,
admissibility to the examination of the substance, or, in the
alternative, to reserve its decision on standing until
judg-
ment in the main proceedings;

in the alternative,

— to order the annulment of Article 3(2)

(and Annex II),
Article 4, Article 7(3), Article 14(2), second paragraph,
Article 15(3) and Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase
of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2)
of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the
market;

— to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicants of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive
98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

— to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicants of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of
the programme referred to in 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal
products;

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

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second
phase of
referred to in
Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products

the 10-year work programme

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/35

on the market (1) (hereinafter ‘the second review regulation’ of
‘SRR’)
(EC) No
repealing Commission Regulation
2032/2003 (2), on the grounds that the contested provisions:

and

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Sahlstedt and Others
v Commission

(i) maintain the letter and/or the content of provisions origin-
ally introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 and
previously challenged by the applicants (Cases T-75/04 to
T-79/04) into the ongoing review of substances in a way
which adversely affects their rights and legitimate expecta-
tions under Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
placing of biocidal products on the market (hereinafter ‘the
BDP’) (3);

(ii) are contradictory in themselves and at odds with the BPD,

and

(iii) violate provisions of the EC Treaty and a series of high-
ranking principles of EC law such as the principle of undis-
torted competition, legal certainty and legitimate expecta-
tions, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimina-
tion, as well as the right to property and freedom to pursue
a trade.

Moreover, the applicants claim that as participants in the second
review regulation, they are entitled to benefit from procedural
guarantees and data protection rights (i.e. exclusive use) for the
data in their notifications and complete dossiers in all Member
the BPD. However,
States in accordance with Article 12 of
according to the applicants, Article 4 of
the SRR, by not
requiring Member States to cancel biocidal product registrations
corresponding to the applicants' notified active substance/
product type combinations held by competing companies which
do not participate in the review and have no access to the data
submitted by the applicants for the purposes of the review, de
jure and de facto violates the exclusive use right granted to the
applicants by Article 12 of the BPD. In addition, the applicants
submit that the defendant misused the powers entrusted upon it
by the basic BPD, by deliberately implementing the BPD in a
way which goes beyond the text of it and upsets the applicants'
rights and expectations. Further,
the
contested measure violates EC Treaty provisions on fair competi-
tion by allowing companies which do not participate in the
review and do not bear investment costs to remain on the
market and regain a competitive advantage over the applicants.

submitted that

is

it

The applicants finally raise a plea of illegality against Article 6(2)
of the FRR and Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of the BPD.

(1) OJ 2007 L 325, p. 3.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003
on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in
Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the
market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003
L 307, p. 1).

(3) OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1.

(Case T-129/08)

(2008/C 128/75)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicants: Markku Sahlstedt (Karkkila, Finland), Juha Kankkunen
(Laukaa, Finland), Mikko Tanner (Vihti, Finland), Toini Tanner
(Helsinki, Finland), Liisa Tanner (Helsinki, Finland), Eeva Jokinen
(Helsinki, Finland), Aili Oksanen (Helsinki, Finland), Olli Tanner
(Lohja, Finland), Leena Tanner (Helsinki, Finland), Aila Puttonen
(Ristiina, Finland), Risto Tanner (Espoo, Finland), Tom Järvinen
(Espoo, Finland), Runo K. Kurko (Espoo, Finland), Maa- ja metsä-
taloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry (Helsinki, Finland), Maata-
loustuottajain Keskusliiton Säätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented
by: K. Marttinen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision which is the subject of this action in so
far as it concerns all the SCI sites in the Republic of Finland
mentioned in that decision;

— alternatively, should the Court not consider the foregoing
possible, annul the decision in so far as it concerns the
specific SCI sites set out section 6.2.2.7 of the application;

— requests for information and measures of inquiry:

If
the
the dispute is not decided solely on the basis of
evidence submitted in this application in favour of the appli-
cants,
in accordance with the above principal heads of
claim, the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities should:

1. order the Commission of the European Communities to
in CD-Rom format, with the
provide the applicants,
proposals submitted to it by Finland,
including all the
areas included in the contested decision together with all
information referred to in recital (7) in the preamble to
the contested decision,

2. order the Commission of the European Communities to
provide to the applicants, in CD-Rom format, scientific
data concerning habitats and other information in its
possession relating to all the areas of the Republic of
Finland referred to in recital (8) in the preamble to the
contested decision, together with,
in paper format, the
maps and the information referred to in recital (9) in the
preamble thereto,

3. order the Commission of the European Communities to
provide the applicants, in CD-Rom format, with all the
documents
relating to the sites in the Republic of
Finland drawn up during the cooperation mentioned in
recital (10) in the preamble to the contested decision, or
made available to the Commission at that time, together
with paper copies of the maps, and