CELEX: C2001/303/33
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-184/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

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 Com-
                                                                              munities (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,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              —     infringement of the principle of equality between men
                                                                              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
—     order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and                 and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
      equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;            she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
                                                                        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 publi-
shed 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
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the                                    (Case T-184/01)
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 Communi-
order 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.,
 ---pagebreak--- 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 new-
                                                                         comers 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 Com-
alternatively                                                            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
      appropriate.                                                       Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-189/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                 (2001/C 303/34)
The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to                                    (Language of the case: French)
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 Communi-
intellectual 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
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the                   under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
Commission has violated the protection granted by national                     that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The                 under the 1999 promotions procedure;
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 appli-
EC, 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;