CELEX: C1998/234/60
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-76/98)

C 234/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                       with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
                                                                   1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
                                                                   applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
                                                                   and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle        In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative           following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement         Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision.                       Regulations;
                                                                   Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
                                                                       Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
                                                                       against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                       Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
                       (Case T-75/98)
                        (98/C 234/59)                              Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
                                                                       to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
                                                                       of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         Committees took years to complete reach their
                                                                       findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
                                                                   Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                           (98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
    proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with                        (Language of the case: French)
    the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
    refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of        An action against the Commission of the European
    participating in the Medical Committee;                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material                   by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
    damage caused in the amount of six times the amount            (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
    mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    and other costs;                                               Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
3. order the defendant to pay the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
                                                                       notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
                                                                       complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal              authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related                    the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in                   Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing                    1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively.                                        No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
                                                                           applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the                          promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical                     procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees          Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio                   No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance                     promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/31
         procedure, in so far as that decision does not            The applicant claims that the Court should:
         mention the applicant's name.
                                                                   Ð Annul        and/or    declare    unlawful     Commission
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation of up to BFR                 Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 (OJ
    833 000;                                                           1998 L 87, p. 8) supplementing the Annex to
                                                                       Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of
                                                                       geographical indications and designations of origin
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    provides for Italy, in respect of olive oil Ð in the
                                                                       context of the products intended for human
The applicant contests her omission from the list of                   consumption listed in Annex II to the Treaty under
officials most deserving of promotion in the 1997                      Oils and fats' Ð use of the Protected Geographical
promotions procedure and the refusal by the appointing                 Indication (PGI) Toscano' (Tuscan), subject to the
authority to promote her to grade B 2 in the course of                 rules laid down by the Italian State;
that procedure.
                                                                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
support of her claims:                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 90(2) and the first paragraph            The applicants comprise two regional associations whose
    of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, together with the       duty, according to their statutes, is to safeguard the
    decision     of   the    Commission      published     in      interests of agricultural producers in their respective
    Administrative Notices No 498 of 7 April 1986,                 provinces; a consortium which is an umbrella organisation
    inasmuch as the contested decision was signed by the           for various olive growers in the Province of Florence; and
    Member of the Commission responsible for personnel             other proprietors of agricultural holdings in that Province
    and administrative matters, whereas only the                   which produce significant quantities of extra virgin olive
    Commission as a whole or the Director-General for              oil from Tuscany. Hitherto, all the applicants have used,
    Personnel and Administration was competent to sign             as they saw fit, the designation Colli Fiorentini'
    it.                                                            (Florentine Hills) (or Colline di Firenze' (Hill Country of
                                                                   Florence) or di Firenze' (of Florence), and the like).
                                                                   Considering themselves to be adversely affected by the
Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as
                                                                   contested Regulation, in so far as it establishes toscano'
    enshrined in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations, and
                                                                   (Tuscan) as a protected geographical indication, and
    of Article 45(1) of those Regulations, inasmuch as the
                                                                   provides for the application of the related rules, which
    appointing authority failed in the present case to
                                                                   make it compulsory to adopt a single main common
    consider the comparative merits of those eligible, as
                                                                   designation for all olives from Tuscany and do not permit
    provided for therein.
                                                                   the more specific indication Colli Fiorentini' (or similar)
                                                                   to be used as appropriate. According to the applicants,
                                                                   notwithstanding the fact that Colli Fiorentini' is the only
                                                                   indication enabling a prestigious product to be effectively
                                                                   distinguished from other, more ordinary, products from
                                                                   other areas of Tuscany, it has been relegated in status to a
Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale                mere indicator of a sottozona' (sub-area).
degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria
Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio             In support of their claims, the applicants plead
Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di            infringement of Articles 2 and 17 of Council Regulation
Firenze, SocietaÁ Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda         (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 and Article 43 of the
Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta                 Treaty establishing the European Communities. They
Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il               maintain not only that Community legislation does
        Bottaio against Commission of the European                 not recognise sub-areas' or additional geographical
                         Communities                               particulars', but also that a protected geographical
                       (Case T-78/98)                              indication' for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2081/92, broken down and subdivided into
                        (98/C 234/61)
                                                                   sub-areas' or additional geographical particulars' seems
                                                                   to be a legal nonsense, given that the sub-divisions in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     question ought really to have been recognised as genuine
                                                                   independent protected designations of origin'. In other
An action against the Commission of the European                   words, even though a product such as extra virgin olive
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  oil produced in the Florentine Hills satisfies, according to
Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 1998                the applicants, all the requirements set out in
by the Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze and         Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, it has
Others, represented by Vittorio Chierroni, of the Florence         been relegated Ð by means of the contested geographical
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              indication, which the related rules in fact divide in terms
Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                       of sub-areas Ð to a mere specification within that