Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

27.10.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303/19

**Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors** The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
**against the European Parliament** alleging:

—
failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;
**(Case T-181/01)**

— manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
the service and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
(2001/C 303/32) Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;
_(Language of the case: French)_

—
breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
vacancy notice, and the legal maxim _patere legem quam_
_ipse fecisti_, in that the procedure currently applicable to
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
recruitment of staff in the political groups was not
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
complied with in the present case;
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident in Brussels,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers, —
infringement of the principle of equality between men
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
against because she was pregnant, and, second, the
principle according to which, all things being equal,
The applicant claims that the Court should: preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the

—
annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of applicant, is a man;
administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to —
breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.
accept her application for that post and, in so far as
necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
complaint taken on 28 May 2001;
Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
— and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and
she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;
staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
rights connected with recruitment as a member of the

—
order the defendant to pay all the costs. temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
the reasons for its decisions.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice published on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group **Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.**
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and **against the Commission of the European Communities**
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
**(Case T-184/01)**
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against
(2001/C 303/33)
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for _(Language of the case: English)_
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the An action against the Commission of the European Communiorder of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
merit. European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,

C 303/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27.10.2001

a company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of The Commission’s argument that the applicant’s copyright is a
the State of Delaware (USA), represented by Nicholas Levy, prerequisite for entering the market is, according to the
John Temple Lang and Robert O’Donoghue, of Cleary, Gottlieb, applicant, also incorrect and based on a misinterpretation of
Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium). the facts. The applicant states that its competitors are using a
different structure to present the information and that newcomers in the market are free to develop their own structure.
The applicant claims that its ‘1 860 brick structure’ is not the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
_de facto_ industry standard, but merely the format used by the
leading data services provider.

—
annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001,
ordering interim measures in case COMP D3/38044,
The applicant further claims that there is no _prima facie_ case to
justify the ordering of an interim measure. Also, the Comalternatively mission has erred in weighing the interests involved for the
purposes of ordering the interim measures. According to the
applicant, the grant of a licence would cause irreparable

—
annul the decision insofar as it requires IMS Health to damage to its business and render its intellectual property
license the 1 860 Brick Structure to companies currently rights devoid of all purpose.
present on the German market for regional sales data
services and specifies the conditions under which the
negotiation of licence terms is to be conducted and The applicant further claims that the Commission has violated
approved by the Commission, the applicant’s rights of defence during the preliminary
procedure.

and, in any event,

—
order the Commission to pay IMS Health’s legal costs and
expenses in relation to this matter;

—
adopt all such further measures as the Court may consider
**Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas**
appropriate.
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-189/01)**

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
(2001/C 303/34)

_(Language of the case: French)_
The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to
pharmaceutical companies. It has developed in that connection
a specific presentation of this information, called the
‘1 860 brick structure’, of which the applicant holds the An action against the Commission of the European Communiintellectual property rights in Germany. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission has ordered an interim measure relating to a
proceeding against the applicant under Article 82 of the EC
Treaty, requiring the applicant to grant licences for the use of The applicant claims that the Court should:
the ‘1 860 brick structure’ to third parties currently present on
the German market for the provision of regional sales data. —
annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
That measure is currently contested by the applicant.
22 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
name should not be included on the list of grade A 5
officials considered the most deserving of promotion
under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
Commission has violated the protection granted by national
under the 1999 promotions procedure;
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The
right to refuse access to one’s intellectual property constitutes,

—
according to the applicant, the essence of intellectual property in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
rights. Such a refusal is not therefore contrary to Article 82 decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appliEC, unless it is accompanied by additional conduct. Such cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
conduct is, according to the applicant, not present in this case. Staff Regulations;