CELEX: C2001/004/15
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-340/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Comunità Montana della Valnerina against Commission of the European Communities

6.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 4/9
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by Bactria Industrie-                  —     It grants phase-out periods for the continued selling of
hygiene Service GmbH & Co K.G. against the Commission                          active substances that are found to be unfit for EU central
                 of the European Communities                                   register inclusion which are unreasonably long and will
                                                                               economically damage participating diligent companies,
                                                                               like the applicant.
                         (Case T-339/00)
                          (2001/C 4/14)                                  —     It requires companies to share commercially sensitive
                                                                               market information when making a notification, which
                                                                               gives rise to antitrust concerns when producers become
                                                                               aware of each other’s market volumes and shares.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                —     It infringes well established principles of EU law such as
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the fundamental right of data ownership, the principles
European Communities on 8 November 2000 by Bactria                             of legitimate expectations, proportionality, uniform
Industriehygiene Service GmbH & Co. KG, represented by                         application of Community law, and supremacy of inter-
Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of the Brussels                      national agreements.
Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of                       on the market, OJ L 123 , of 24 April 1998, p. 1.
      7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme
      referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the           (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September
                                                                             2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article
      Europan Parliament and of the Council on biocidal
                                                                             16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      products, based on Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty;                    Council on biocidal products, OJ L 228 , of 8 September 2000,
                                                                             p. 6.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceed-
      ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant manufactures peracetic acid (‘PAA’), which is an
active substance used in biocidal products.
Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of Directive 98/8/EC (1),
the Commission initiated a programme of work for the review              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Comunità
of all active substances of biocidal products already on the             Montana della Valnerina against Commission of the Euro-
market. To this end, the Commission adopted regulation (EC)                                      pean Communities
No 1896/2000 (2). This regulation initiates a notification
procedure for active substances to be evaluated for a possible
inclusion in a list of substances that are eligible to be placed
on the market.                                                                                     (Case T-340/00)
The applicant submits that it is individually and directly                                          (2001/C 4/15)
concerned by this regulation and seeks its annulment on the
following grounds:
—     The Regulation violates the data protection provisions                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
      set forth in the Directive by ignoring protection for
      commercially sensitive and expensive active substance
      data, legally granted by the Directive, during the review          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      period of these active substances.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 November 2000 by the Comu-
—     It distorts competition in violation of the EC Treaty in           nità Montana della Valnerina, represented by Emilio Cappelli
      that it allows companies which do not participate in the           and Paolo De Caterini, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
      review process to take a free ride on notifications made           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13 B,
      by participating diligent companies, like the applicant;           avenue Guillaume.
 ---pagebreak--- C 4/10                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt
                                                                                     against the European Central Bank
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000                                   (Case T-341/00)
      No 54 (2000) D/106308 pursuant to Article 320(4) of
      the EC Treaty and order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                 (2001/C 4/16)
                                                                                         (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                      before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                      on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
By the present action the applicant contests the decision of the      (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner
Commission of 14 August 2000 No 54 (2000) D/106308                    and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main
withdrawing the financial contribution from the EAGGF                 (Germany).
granted to the Comunità Montana della Valnerina (Norcia) by
decision C(93) 3182 of 10 November 2000 relating to a
contribution by the EAGGF-Guidance Section in the context             The applicant claims that the Court should:
of project 93.IT.06.016 ‘a pilot forestry agro-alimentary
demonstration project in marginal hill areas (France, Italy)’.        —     declare that the European Central Bank has committed
                                                                            a breach of the applicant’s employment contract by
                                                                            employing him to perform the activities forming the
                                                                            subject-matter of the job description of 28 June 2000;
The applicant points out in this connection that, in order to
improve the chances of obtaining finance for the project              —     declare that the job description of 28 June 2000 has no
submitted by the applicant, the Commission had suggested                    legal force or effect;
through non-official channels to the authorities of the upland
community to link their project with a similar one put forward
by the ‘Route des Senteurs’ operating in the Drôme Provençale         —     order the European Central Bank to withdraw the job
region of France.                                                           description of 28 June 2000;
                                                                      —     order the European Central Bank, in the event that the
                                                                            relief constituting item (3) in the form of order sought in
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of                   his application of 30 June 2000 in Case T-178/00 (1) is
the principles of non-discrimination and of proportionality,                not granted by the Court of First Instance, to provide the
inasmuch as the defendant has sought, by a global withdrawal                applicant in any event with work corresponding to the
of the total contribution, to deal with complex and hetero-                 activities forming the subject-matter of the job description
genous facts, arising from two draft projects submitted entirely            on which the applicant’s staff report of 23 November
separately and independently by two different persons, with                 1999 was based;
the risk of charging each of the partners with also having
committed the irregularity alleged against the other party.           —     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
Moreover, according to the applicant, it is clear that the            Pleas in law and main arguments
irregularity with which ‘Route des Senteurs’ is charged, involv-
ing almost 67 % of the EEC contribution, is far greater than          The applicant is an employee of the ECB. He contests the
that with which the applicant is charged, which involves only         validity in law of a written communication by the defendant
36 % of the same contribution. It is in fact the sanction of          assigning him, with reference to a job description, to perform
withdrawing the whole of the contribution which gives rise to         new tasks. He maintains that the assignment to him of those
the breach of the principle of proportionality, where a               tasks infringes his contractual rights. In addition, the job
reduction of that contribution in proportion to any irregularity      description is inconsistent with what has been contractually
would have been an equitable solution which would have                agreed.
taken account of their respective responsibilities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 29.