Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

8.7.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 192/19

product, not smokable without further processing, and there- — Infringement of Article 37 of the EC Treaty: the notification
fore not excisable. There is no published decision determining system provided for by the regulation in issue disregards
the issue and giving reasons for the classification chosen. the objectives of Article 37, inasmuch as its implemenConsequently, it requested access to complete minutes of the tation will lead to the disappearance of a considerable
meeting of the Excise Duty Committee of 29 and 30 April number of economic operators and will result, at the same
1998 and of the subsequent meeting of 28 and 29 October time, in the sources of supply of plant protection products
1999 at which the duty treatment of expanded tobacco was being concentrated amongst a few multinational underapparently determined. This request was definitively refused takings, thus enabling the latter to limit supplies and,
by letter of the Secretary General of 8 March 2000. consequently, to raise prices.

The applicant contests the validity of this decision. The pleas — Failure to have regard to Directive 91/414/EEC: the
in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in contested regulation alters the criteria governing appliCase T-41/00. cations for authorisation to market plant protection products, so that they differ from those laid down in the
abovementioned directive, which constitutes the legal basis
( [1] ) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40. of the regulation.

— Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, the

protection of legitimate expectations and sound management: the new notification system prevents the applicants
from marketing certain substances in respect of which they
held marketing authorisations under the system provided
for by Directive 91/414/EEC, without that situation being
**Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A. and** justified on any public-interest grounds.
**7 others against the Commission of the European Com-**
**munities** — Infringement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO)( [3] ): the contested
**(Case T-112/00)** regulation confers on persons holding the confidential
information which must be provided in order to obtain
authorisation to market plant protection products an
(2000/C 192/35)
exclusive protection exceeding that arising from the principles underlying the provisions of the abovementioned
_(Language of the case: French)_ Agreement, in particular Articles 8(2) and 39(3) thereof.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ( [1] ) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.
( [2] ) OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A.,
( [3] ) OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994, p. 214.
established in Barcelona (Spain), and 7 others, represented by
Miquel Roca Junyent and Joan Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona
Bar.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC)
No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the
**Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinschaft**
detailed rules for the implementation of the second
**Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE) against the Commission**
and third stages of the work programme referred to in
**of the European Communities**
Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs. **(Case T-114/00)**

(2000/C 192/36)
_Pleas in law and principal arguments_

The applicants contest Commission Regulation (EC)
_(Language of the case: German)_
No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000( [1] ) laying down the detailed
rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of
the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council An action against the Commission of the European CommuniDirective 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protec- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
tion products on the market( [2] ), the object of which is a gradual European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinexamination of active substances placed on the market with a schaft Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE), of Borken (Federal
view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to that directive. Republic of Germany), represented by Prof. Matthias Pechstein,
The pleas put forward are as follows: of Berlin.

C 192/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8.7.2000

The applicant claims that the Court should: **Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**
— annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
Decision SG (2000) D/100623 of the Commission of
22 December 1999( [1] );
**(Case T-116/00)**
— order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the
costs necessarily incurred by the latter.
(2000/C 192/37)

_Pleas in law and principal arguments_

By the contested decision, the Commission categorised the
_(Language of the case: French)_
draft law amending the legislation on property rights, as
notified to it by the German Government, as aid compatible
with the EC Treaty. The draft modifies the programme for the
acquisition of land provided for by the German Ausgleichslei- An action against the Commission of the European Communistungsgesetz (Indemnification and Compensation Act), pursu- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ant to which parcels of State-owned land in the new Federal European Communities on 3 May 2000 by Benthe HørbyeLänder are to be sold to various groups of purchasers at prices Möller, residing at Igel (Federal Republic of Germany), replower than their market value. resented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.

The applicant states that it represents several hundred former
owners who are not entitled to any restitution and whose
The applicant claims that the Court should:
entitlement to assert their rights is subordinated, under the
Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, to that of other groups of purchasers. The contested decision is of direct and individual
— annul the appointing authority’s decision dated 16 January
concern to the applicant and/or to its members.
2000 rejecting her complaint No 516/99 concerning the
refusal to include her name on the list of officials proposed
The application is based, in particular, on the following pleas
in law: by the Official Publications Office for promotion to
grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure;
— The decision in issue does not comply with the obligation,
imposed by Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of
reasons. — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision promoting officials of the Official Publications Office to grade B2
The reasons given by the Commission by way of justifi- in the 1999 promotions procedure;
cation for its finding that the discrimination on grounds of
nationality to which it had itself objected in its Decision
C (1999) 42 of 20 January 1999( [2] ) is eliminated by — take note of the fact that she reserves the right in due
the draft law are not in themselves conclusive. The
course to claim compensation for the material and nonCommission’s main assertion, to the effect that that
material loss suffered by her.
discrimination has been eliminated by the deletion of the
rules relating to the reference date, is not sufficiently borne
out.

— The decision infringes the EC Treaty. The Commission has
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
not taken full account of the scope of the prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of nationality.

Contrary to the view expressed by the Commission, The applicant contests the refusal by the appointing authority
Paragraph 3a of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, in the to include her name on the list of officials proposed for
amended version thereof, is not in conformity with promotion to grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
Community law. A supplementary purchase price claim
cannot be regarded as equivalent to a claim for restitution
of aid. On the contrary, Community law required that all
the parcels of land released in consequence of the invalidity In support of her claims, he pleads infringement of
of the allocation decisions adopted in contravention of the Articles 5(3), 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations. She considers
implementation prohibition provided for in the third in that regard that the appointing authority has committed a
sentence of Article 88(3) EC should be re-allocated in their manifest error of assessment and has acted in a manner
entirety. contrary to the interests of the service.

( [1] ) OJ C 46 of 19.2.2000, p. 2.
( [2] ) OJ L 107 of 24.4.1999, p. 21.