Case T-293/08: Action brought on 24 July 2008 — BASF Plant Science and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-07-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, genetically modified organism, marketing, potato

C 272/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

the applicant claims that

sufficiently serious — important provisions

In its application,
the defendant's
administrative and normative conduct during, prior to and
following the end of the anti-dumping proceedings concerning
imports of CD-Rs from the People's Republic of China, Hong
Kong and Malaysia infringed — repeatedly and in a manner that
was
in anti-
dumping law which are intended to confer rights on the appli-
cant. Further, the applicant claims that those sufficiently serious
infringements of the law on the part of the Commission caused
the applicant significant damage. Finally, the applicant claims
that there is a direct causal link between those serious infringe-
ments of the law and the damage that has already been caused
and the damage still to be expected.

(1) Commission Decision of 3 November 2006 terminating the anti-
dumping proceeding concerning imports of recordable compact
discs (CD+/-R) originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong
Kong and Malaysia (OJ 2006 L 305, p. 15).

Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case T-283/08 P)

(2008/C 272/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (represented by P. Giatagantzidis
and S. Stavropoulou, lawyers)

— uphold the action brought by the appellant on 19 June

2006;

— order Cedefop to pay the costs of both the case at first

instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his action, the appellant sought, inter alia, the annulment of
the decision of the Director of Cedefop terminating his employ-
ment contract of indefinite duration. That action was dismissed
by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008.

The appellant submits that
the judgment under appeal was
delivered in breach of the rules that govern the bringing of
evidence because it was based on matters that were not proved.
More specifically, when examining the appellant's argument that
the reasons for dismissal were communicated to him orally at
the meeting on 23 November 2005, the Civil Service Tribunal
erred in law because it altered the subject of the evidence.

In addition, the appellant contends that the reasoning set out in
the judgment under appeal
is not adequate. In particular, he
the Civil Service Tribunal's reasoning was not
asserts that
adequate when it decided whether the appellant was appropri-
ately and sufficiently informed by Cedefop as to the reasons for
his dismissal and that the Tribunal did not specify all the facts
which in its view led to his dismissal.

Finally, the appellant submits that his complaint of 28 February
2006 challenging the decision to dismiss him was not heard by
the Appeals Committee of Cedefop in an objective and impartial
manner.

Other party to the proceedings: Cedefop

Action brought on 24 July 2008 — BASF Plant Science and
Others v Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service
Tribunal of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis
v Cedefop;

(Case T-293/08)

(2008/C 272/55)

Language of the case: English

— annul

the decision of

the Director of Cedefop of
30 November 2005 terminating the appellant's employment
contract of indefinite duration of 4 March 2003, and any
other related administrative act;

— annul

the decision of

11 November 2005 amending the composition of
Appeals Committee of Cedefop, and any other
administrative act;

the Director of Cedefop of
the
related

— annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop of
24 May 2006 rejecting the appellant's
complaint of
28 February 2006, and any other related administrative act;

Parties

Applicants: BASF Plant Science GmbH (Ludwigshafen, Germany),
Plant Science Sweden AB (Svalöv, Sweden), Amylogene HB
(Svalöv, Sweden) and BASF Plant Science Holding GmbH
(Ludwigshafen, Germany)
(represented by: D. Waelbroeck,
lawyer, U. Zinsmeister, lawyer and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/29

Form of order sought

— To declare the present application admissible and well

founded;

— To declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures
provided for in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of
12 March 2001 and in Article 5 of Council Decision
1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 and adopt the Amflora Deci-
sion,
its obligations
under these articles; alternatively

the Commission has failed to fulfil

— To order

the annulment of

the Commission decision
granting a mandate to EFSA ‘for a consolidated opinion on
use of antibiotic resistant marker genes (ARM) used as
marker genes in genetically modified plants’, dated 14 May
2008 and the suspension of the procedure leading to the
adoption of the Amflora Decision, notified to the applicants
by letter dated 19 May 2008;

— To grant the requested measures of instruction;

— To order

the defendant

to pay all costs and expenses

incurred in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Commission, by failing to adopt a
decision on the request for authorisation to place a genetically
modified potato (‘Amflora potato’) on the market for industrial
uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (1), has disregarded its obliga-
tions under Article 18(1) of the said directive and Article 5(6)
of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (‘the Comitology decision’) (2)
and has
thereby failed to act within the meaning on
Article 232 EC.

that

The applicants submit
the Commission's obligation to
adopt such a decision within the timeframe laid down in Direc-
tive 2001/18/EC is further confirmed by a number of factors,
namely (a) the need to preserve institutional balance, (b) further
consideration of the legal basis for the Commission's request
and (c) general principles of EC law.

However, the applicants contend that,
in the event that the
Court found that the Commission's letter of 19 May 2008
constitutes a definition of the Commission's position, and that
the applicants' action for failure to act is therefore inadmissible,
the applicants request in the alternative the Court to annul the
Commission decision of 14 May 2008 granting a mandate to
EFSA for a consolidated opinion, and the suspension of the
procedure pending a fifth scientific assessment, leading to the
adoption of the contested decision.

The applicants claim that in adopting the contested decision,
and thus, further delaying the adoption of the Amflora Deci-
sion,
the Commission infringed Article 18(1) of Directive
2001/18 and Article 5(6) subparagraph 3 of the Comitology
decision, which required the Amflora Decision to be adopted

within 120 days following the commencement of the Com-
munity procedure, as well as fundamental EC law principles of
proportionality, sound administration,
legitimate expectations,
legal certainty and non-discrimination.

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of

the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
the Commission (OJ 1999 C 184, p. 23).

Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Elf Aquitaine v
Commission

(Case T-299/08)

(2008/C 272/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by:
E.Morgan de Rivery, S.Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul, pursuant

Commission

the Decision of
to Article 230 EC,
the
Communities
the
No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in so far as it
concerns Elf Aquitaine;

European

of

— in the alternative:

— annul or reduce, pursuant to Article 229 EC, the fine of
EUR 22 700 000 imposed jointly and severally on
Arkema France SA and Elf Aquitaine by Article 2(c) of
the Decision of
the European
Communities No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008;

the Commission of

— annul or reduce, pursuant to Article 229 EC, the fine of
EUR 15 890 000 imposed on Elf Aquitaine by
Article 2(e) of the Decision of the European Commu-
nities No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008;

— in any event, order

the Commission of

the European

Communities to pay all the costs.