CELEX: C2000/247/52
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-147/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories Servier against the Commission of the European Communities

26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel                       Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Servier against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                         (Case T-142/00)
                                                                                                  (Case T-147/00)
                         (2000/C 247/51)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 247/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Huffel, residing at Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented              European Communities on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.             Servier, represented by Elisabethann Wright of White & Case,
                                                                         Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of the selection board in internal
       competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application sub-              —     declare that the decision of the Commission of 9 March
       mitted by the applicant;                                                2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                               ations for medicinal products for human use which
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   contain the substances ‘Dexfenfluramine’ and ‘Fenflurami-
                                                                               ne’ is invalid and should be annulled.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     award the applicant the costs of the present action.
The applicant states that, since December 1995, he has worked
continuously for the Commission under successive contracts               Pleas in law and main arguments
as an in-house consultant, as a member of the auxiliary staff
and as a member of the temporary staff. In December 1999 he
applied to take part in internal competition COM/TA/99                   The contested decision requires the Member States to withdraw
organised by the Commission for the constitution of a reserve            the marketing authorisations of Dexfenfluramine and Fenflura-
list of grade A7/A8 and A5/A4 administrators and principal               mine containing medicinal products. The applicant manufac-
administrators. The selection board in that competition                  tures pharmaceutical products containing these substances.
decided to reject his application on the ground that he did not
fulfil the condition requiring applicants to be members of the
regular staff of the Commission who had entered into service             It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
by no later than 1 February 1997, as provided for in the notice          grounds:
of competition.
                                                                         —     The decision was not addressed to the applicant as the
                                                                               holder of the marketing authorisation, contrary to the
The applicant claims that that decision is illegal, since it is                terms of the relevant legislation.
based, first, on an irregular administrative situation which itself
resulted from an abuse of process and, second, on an unlawful
condition for admission to the competition, inasmuch as it is            —     The criteria set forth in Directive 65/65 (1), as interpreted
contrary to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.                               by the European Court, for the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                               authorisation are that the product is harmful in the
                                                                               normal conditions of use or that its therapeutic effect is
He further maintains that, in considering that he did not form                 lacking. The decision does not rely upon these criteria,
part of the regular staff of the Commission at the material                    but mentions other criteria.
time, the selection board committed a manifest error of
assessment.
                                                                         —     By reading the same CPMP report in 1996 and in
                                                                               2000 as conveying radically different information, the
                                                                               Commission made a manifest error of appreciation in
                                                                               reaching its decision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.8.2000
—     By failing to base its decision upon the criteria prescribed        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in the applicable directive, the Commission erred in law.
                                                                          The applicant is an international association of European flat
—     By failing to accept that exceptional circumstances were            glass producers. It seeks annulment of a Commission decision
      present which could justify reaching a different con-               relating to aid granted by Italy to Sangalli Manfredonia Vetro
      clusion than that of the CPMP, the Commission made a                in connection with the construction of a flat-glass factory at
      manifest error of appreciation, violated the rights of the          Manfredonia in southern Italy.
      applicant to have a fair, neutral and careful examination
      of its products and failed to respect the applicable
      legislation.                                                        The applicant maintains that the regional aid project in issue
                                                                          should have been notified to the Commission in the context
                                                                          of the multi-sectoral framework on regional aid. It doubts that
—     The decision fails to explain, in a clear and consistent
                                                                          the subsidy decision was taken by the Italian authorities on a
      manner, why the two products were harmful, and is
                                                                          date prior to that of the entry into force of the framework
      therefore vitiated by inadequate reasoning.
                                                                          scheme. Moreover, the project exceeds the parameters of the
                                                                          regional scheme authorised by previous decisions of the
—     The decision fails to respect the property rights of                Commission.
      the applicant as these are protected by the European
      Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               In addition, the applicant disputes the Commission’s con-
                                                                          clusion that Sangalli and the Sangalli Vetro group were
                                                                          medium-sized undertakings and that they were therefore
                                                                          entitled to receive an additional 15 % by way of gross grant
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-        equivalent (GGE). It postulates that the method used to define
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ
                                                                          undertakings covered by the notion of small and medium-
    1965, 22, p. 369).                                                    sized enterprises (SMEs) is contrary to Article 87(3)(a) and (e)
                                                                          EC. That method prompted the Commission unlawfully to
                                                                          authorise the grant of aid to undertakings which are not SMEs.
                                                                          Lastly, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
                                                                          assessment of the facts in deciding that the investment aid in
                                                                          issue was in accordance with the Commission’s previous
                                                                          decisions approving the aid scheme provided for in Law
                                                                          No 488/92. Contrary to the requirement laid down by that
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Groupement Européen                      law, the project in issue was not economically viable. The
des Producteurs de Verre Plat against the Commission of                   Commission’s assessment in that regard was, on the facts,
                   the European Communities                               manifestly erroneous.
                         (Case T-150/00)
                         (2000/C 247/53)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain
                                                                          against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Groupement                                                 (Case T-151/00)
Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
                                                                                                  (2000/C 247/54)
Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
—     annul decision C(99) 2895 final of the Commission of                An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      the European Communities of 20 July 1999 — State aid                Commission of the European Communities was brought
      C86/98 (ex NN 135/98 — Italy — aid granted to Sangalli              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      Manfredonia Vetro, Apulia (Italy));                                 on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain, established at
                                                                          Nontron (France), represented by Claude Lazarus, of the Paris
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.                       Bar.