CELEX: C2000/285/25
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-182/00: Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against the European Parliament

7.10.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against
                                                                                            the European Parliament
The applicant is a licensee and local representative for a
pharmaceutical product marketed under the name OPTRUMA.                                          (Case T-182/00)
This product was registered under the centralised Community
authorisation procedure, as laid down by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2309/93 (1).                                                                           (2000/C 285/25)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision                               (Language of the case: Italian)
refusing the use of its company logo in the so-called ‘blue box’
on the outer packaging of the product.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
This ‘blue box’ is a boxed area provided to accommodate the
                                                                        on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella, represented by Piero
specific information Member States may require to appear on             A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
the package as laid down by Article 5 (2) of Directive
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
92/27/EEC (2).
                                                                        Albert 1er.
The annulment is sought on the following grounds:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     lack of any legal basis in the applicable Community
                                                                        —     declare the present action admissible;
      regulations to adopt the contested decision;
                                                                        —     annul Decision No 303663 of the College of Quaestors
—     illegal interference with the applicant’s right of property
                                                                              of 17 April 2000;
      to the extent that the logo constitutes a property right
      protected under the Treaty;
                                                                        —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
—     frustration of the legitimate expectation which the Com-          Pleas in law and main arguments
      mission caused the applicant to entertain;
                                                                        The present action seeks annulment of Decision No 303663
—     lack of an appropriate statement of reasons;                      of the College of Quaestors of the European Parliament of
                                                                        17 April 2000 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality and of           pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Rules governing the payment
      the applicant’s right to freely exercise its economic             of expenses and allowances to Members, for his non-attend-
      activities;                                                       ance at the January 2000 session of the Parliament to be
                                                                        excused. The reason given for that request was that the
—     failure to comply with the time-limit of 90 days pre-             applicant had to attend the hearing in criminal proceedings
      scribed by Article 10 (3) of Directive 92/27/EEC.                 brought against him.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Guidelines on the           In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
packaging information, which the Commission issued to
clarify the labelling requirements have no legal force. However,        —     incorrect interpretation of the above-mentioned
should these Guidelines nevertheless be considered binding, it                Article 28(2), inasmuch as the rationale for that provision
invokes a plea of illegality pursuant to Article 241 EC as the                is to prevent Members from being penalised where they
Commission had no competence to adopt a rule infringing                       are unable to attend sessions of the Parliament for reasons
fundamental property rights.                                                  beyond their control. More particularly, the applicant
                                                                              maintains that the term ‘serious family circumstances’ is
                                                                              capable of covering all situations in which the person
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying                concerned cannot reasonably be expected to resume his
    down Community procedures for the authorisation and super-                normal activities in the usual way;
    vision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and
    establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
    Products, OJ 1993 L 214 , p. 1.                                     —     infringement of his right to a fair hearing, which should
(2) Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling             be understood as meaning that a person involved in
    of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. OJ           proceedings is entitled to participate personally in those
    1992 L 113, p. 8.                                                         proceedings.