Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

14.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 200/47

—
**Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the** Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regu**judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court** lations and of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Rules: The Court
**of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth** of First Instance confined its examination to the issue of
**Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European** transmission of the pathogen and took no account of the
**Communities** view that the consequences of an accident are not limited
to its immediate effects but may manifest themselves at a
later time. Given that a particular pathology can derive
**(Case C-181/01 P)** only from a specific cause, the proof lies _in re ipsa_ : it is
sufficient to link the contamination with its cause. The
(2001/C 200/83) appellant observes, first, that the circumstances of his
contamination were purely sexual. He then observes that
even if the Court of First Instance’s argument that the CM
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February did not treat the tearing of the condom as the cause of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi- contamination or was not able to define such tearing
ties (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the precisely were to be accepted — _quod non_ — all the
European Communities was brought before the Court of other factual, chronological and medical circumstances
Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2001 by N, described by the MC add up to a presumption such that
represented by the lawyer G. Durazzo. the appellant’s infection can be classified as an accident.
In any event, if the circumstances indicated do not
constitute an ‘occurrence’ of the kind referred to in
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should: Article 2(1) of the Rules, they do add up to a ‘factor’ of
the kind mentioned in the alternative.

—
declare the appeal admissible and well founded,

—
set aside the contested judgment, —
Infringement of the rules governing the Commission’s
— non-contractual liability (Article 288 EC): the conduct
grant the form of order sought in the application( [1] ),
and misconduct of the appointing authority, if only
— because of the fact that the disposal of the case was
order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances
thereby delayed, have had a psychological and stressful
and to reimburse the Joint Sickness Insurance Fund costs
impact on the appellant to an extent greater than that
incurred by the appellant.
which would be suffered by a person in perfect health or
in proceedings in an ordinary staff case. Since the damage
is not directly quantifiable, the appellant relies on a fair
assessment to be made by the Court.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

—
Distortion of the opinion of the Medical Committee (MC)
and infringement of the principle that measures must be
construed according to their actual content; materially ( [1] ) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
incorrect findings conflicting with the content of the said
opinion; infringement of the legal principle concerning
the interpretation of complex measures; infringement of
the principles expounded in case-law concerning the
conditions applicable to the propriety, interpretation and
content of opinions of medical committees; illogical
and contradictory statement of reasons; breach of the
presumption of good faith; infringement of Article 19 of
the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease (‘the Rules’).

—
Infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-**
Articles 2, 4, 7 and 19 of the Rules: in order to avoid **ichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-**
defining the incident at issue as an accident (that is to say, **Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger**
HIV infection), the CM introduced into the debate the
concepts of consent to risk and irresistible violence and
the possibility of treating different conditions as being **(Case C-182/01)**
the same and not giving rise to invalidity. The Court of
First Instance, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to
examine whether the appointing authority, in endorsing
(2001/C 200/84)
the opinion of the MC, which refers in its conclusions to
the concept of ‘accident’, respected the meaning of the
relevant provisions, did not conclude, as it should have Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
done, that those assessments were incorrect. European Communities by order of the Gerichtshof of

C 200/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.7.2001

22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April The Commission claims that the Court should:
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut
—
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
following questions: down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC( [1] )
1. Can of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
(a) a limited company (GmbH) established under Gerthat directive;
man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the
meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation —
order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(EC) No 1768/95( [1] ) of 24 July 1995, and can

(b) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the abovementioned regulation even in respect of holders
who are not shareholders in it but members of an In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
association which is a shareholder, and can
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.
(c) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the abovementioned regulation (for a consideration) even in Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
members of an association which is a shareholder? to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2. Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu- Community.
lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994( [2] ), read in
conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
(EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer, The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpohe has carried out an act of use in respect of the ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
question on his holding? ( [1] ) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.

( [1] ) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
( [2] ) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.

**Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt**
**against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by**
**the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the**
**European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter**
**Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency**

**Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of**
**(Case C-184/01 P)**
**the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic**

(2001/C 200/86)
**(Case C-183/01)**

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
(2001/C 200/85)
2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi2001 by the Commission of the European Communities, ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
Adviser. an address for service in Luxembourg.