CELEX: C2000/149/77
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-74/00: Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 149/41
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition                    — the contested decision infringes procedural rules, since it is
    constitute an inappropriate measure by which to give                     based on documents obtained by the Commission in 1994
    effect to the earlier judgments;                                         in the context of an investigation carried out in a separate
                                                                             case; such investigations were furthermore carried out in
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition are                    application of a Commission decision which was in fact
    contrary to the agreements reached between the parties;                  illegally adopted on the basis of both Articles 53 of the
                                                                             EEA Agreement and 85 of the EC Treaty; the contested
                                                                             decision also illegally relies on undated documents from
— the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was                      an unknown source;
    terminated on the basis of his results in an internal
    competition, whereas, according to a Commission letter,
    failure to pass an external competition alone can constitute         — the contested decision fails to demonstrate the existence of
    a ground for terminating the employment relationship; the                the alleged infringement;
    contested decision dismissing the applicant is not reasoned;
    the dismissal was notified for a date which is legally               — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
    incorrect.                                                               producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an effect on trade between Member States;
                                                                         — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
                                                                             producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an appreciable effect on competition in the EC;
                                                                         — the duration of the infringement found by the Commission
                                                                             must at any event be regarded as erroneous;
Action brought on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   — in the event that the contested decision can be regarded as
                                                                             covering the EU offshore regions and in particular the UK
                                                                             offshore, the Commission has failed to state reasons for its
                          (Case T-71/00)                                     decision;
                         (2000/C 149/76)                                 — the fine imposed on the applicant should be reduced
                                                                             notably on the ground that any alleged agreement between
                                                                             the European producers should have been regarded as
                                                                             separate from the alleged agreement between the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                           and Japanese producers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Monica Cunningham of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
Brussels.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999 in
    case IV/EA/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes;                                                     (Case T-74/00)
— alternatively, to substantially reduce the fine imposed upon                                   (2000/C 149/77)
    the applicant;
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.                                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan
                                                                         GmbH, of Lüchow, Germany, represented by Ulf Doepner,
The applicant submits that the contested decision should be              Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Düsseldorf,
annulled and/or the fine imposed on it at least substantially            Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
reduced for the following reasons:                                       Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/42                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceutici
                                                                           S.p.A. and seven other companies against the Commission
— annul the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 (K(2000)                                   of the European Communities
     453);
                                                                                                    (Case T-76/00)
— in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     in conjunction with Annex I requires the Federal Republic
     of Germany to withdraw authorisation for the applicant’s                                      (2000/C 149/78)
     preparation containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant possesses a German authorisation for the                     European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceut-
medicinal product containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’.                  ici S.p.A., of Rome, and seven other companies, represented
By the present application it seeks annulment of the Com-                  by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
mission’s decision addressed to the Member States on with-
drawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human use
which contain that substance.                                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
The application is based in particular on the following grounds:           — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 453 of 9 March
                                                                               2000;
— The defendant was not entitled to adopt the contested
     decision. It wrongly bases its decision on Articles 14 and            — in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     15a of Directive 75/319 (1). The conditions under Article                 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member
     15a of the directive are not satisfied.                                   States Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
                                                                               Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom to withdraw
— The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                          the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
     Products altered the subject-matter of the procedure under                containing amfepramon;
     Article 15a of Directive 75/319, in breach of the directive.
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation under                         costs.
     Article 14 of Directive 75/319 and Article 11 of Directive
     65/65 (2) are not satisfied. Neither the harmfulness nor the
     lack of therapeutic efficacy of amfepramon has been
     established.                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— The decision is furthermore disproportionate. The Com-
     mittee for Proprietary Medicinal Products regarded long-              The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
     term studies of the efficacy and side-effects of amfepramon           medicinal products containing amfepramon in various Mem-
     as necessary. Such studies could, however, also be carried            ber States. By the present application they seek annulment of
     out while the preparations continued, to be marketed.                 the Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
     Withdrawal of authorisation, on the other hand, is an                 withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
     irreparable measure and the one which burdens the holder              use which contain that substance. The application is based in
     of the authorisation most severely.                                   particular on the following grounds:
                                                                           — The initiation of the procedure under Article 15a of
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  Directive 75/319/EEC (1) by Belgium was ineffective. The
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                               Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and the
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                    Commission were therefore not entitled to carry out the
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             procedure and adopt the decision.
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English     — The excessive length of the procedure breached essential
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                                                                               procedural requirements.
                                                                           — The procedure on which the decision was based and the
                                                                               decision itself infringe provisions of Directive
                                                                               65/65/EEC (2).