CELEX: C2001/200/84
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-182/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger

14.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 200/47
Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the                        —    Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regu-
judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court                          lations and of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Rules: The Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                         of First Instance confined its examination to the issue of
Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European                       transmission of the pathogen and took no account of the
                          Communities                                        view that the consequences of an accident are not limited
                                                                             to its immediate effects but may manifest themselves at a
                                                                             later time. Given that a particular pathology can derive
                        (Case C-181/01 P)                                    only from a specific cause, the proof lies in re ipsa: it is
                                                                             sufficient to link the contamination with its cause. The
                         (2001/C 200/83)                                     appellant observes, first, that the circumstances of his
                                                                             contamination were purely sexual. He then observes that
                                                                             even if the Court of First Instance’s argument that the CM
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February                      did not treat the tearing of the condom as the cause of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                 contamination or was not able to define such tearing
ties (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the                    precisely were to be accepted — quod non — all the
European Communities was brought before the Court of                         other factual, chronological and medical circumstances
Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2001 by N,                   described by the MC add up to a presumption such that
represented by the lawyer G. Durazzo.                                        the appellant’s infection can be classified as an accident.
                                                                             In any event, if the circumstances indicated do not
                                                                             constitute an ‘occurrence’ of the kind referred to in
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                       Article 2(1) of the Rules, they do add up to a ‘factor’ of
                                                                             the kind mentioned in the alternative.
—     declare the appeal admissible and well founded,
—     set aside the contested judgment,
                                                                        —    Infringement of the rules governing the Commission’s
                                                                             non-contractual liability (Article 288 EC): the conduct
—     grant the form of order sought in the   application (1),
                                                                             and misconduct of the appointing authority, if only
                                                                             because of the fact that the disposal of the case was
—     order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances                thereby delayed, have had a psychological and stressful
      and to reimburse the Joint Sickness Insurance Fund costs               impact on the appellant to an extent greater than that
      incurred by the appellant.                                             which would be suffered by a person in perfect health or
                                                                             in proceedings in an ordinary staff case. Since the damage
                                                                             is not directly quantifiable, the appellant relies on a fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              assessment to be made by the Court.
—     Distortion of the opinion of the Medical Committee (MC)
      and infringement of the principle that measures must be
      construed according to their actual content; materially           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      incorrect findings conflicting with the content of the said
      opinion; infringement of the legal principle concerning
      the interpretation of complex measures; infringement of
      the principles expounded in case-law concerning the
      conditions applicable to the propriety, interpretation and
      content of opinions of medical committees; illogical
      and contradictory statement of reasons; breach of the
      presumption of good faith; infringement of Article 19 of
      the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
      Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
      pational Disease (‘the Rules’).
—     Infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
      Articles 2, 4, 7 and 19 of the Rules: in order to avoid           ichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-
      defining the incident at issue as an accident (that is to say,        Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger
      HIV infection), the CM introduced into the debate the
      concepts of consent to risk and irresistible violence and
      the possibility of treating different conditions as being                                 (Case C-182/01)
      the same and not giving rise to invalidity. The Court of
      First Instance, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to
      examine whether the appointing authority, in endorsing                                   (2001/C 200/84)
      the opinion of the MC, which refers in its conclusions to
      the concept of ‘accident’, respected the meaning of the
      relevant provisions, did not conclude, as it should have          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      done, that those assessments were incorrect.                      European Communities by order of the Gerichtshof of
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/48              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April              The Commission claims that the Court should:
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the                   —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
following questions:                                                         down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
1.   Can                                                                     of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                             cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
     (a)   a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
           man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the                that directive;
           meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
           (EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can
     (b) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-         Pleas in law and main arguments
           mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
           who are not shareholders in it but members of an            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
           association which is a shareholder, and can                 directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
     (c)   such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
           mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
           respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor         to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
           members of an association which is a shareholder?           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.   Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-           Community.
     lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
     conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     (EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the               measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
     holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
     No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
     in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,                 The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
     he has carried out an act of use in respect of the                ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
     variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
     No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
     question on his holding?                                          (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.
(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
                                                                       against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
                                                                       the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
                                                                           Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                        (Case C-184/01 P)
                        (Case C-183/01)                                                        (2001/C 200/86)
                        (2001/C 200/85)                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
                                                                       2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal                  Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
Adviser.                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg.