CELEX: C2003/239/45
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-270/03: Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the Commission of the European Communities

C 239/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             and subversion of the effectiveness of the agreement between
                                                                        the parties in the first case. Third, she alleges that the
                                                                        Commission breached the principle of good management
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition          practice and sound administration and the duty to have regard
      COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 rejecting the applicant’s            for the welfare of officials. Finally, as her fourth plea in favour
      request of 26 June 2002 that the selection board recon-           of annulment, she relies on misuse of powers and alleged
      sider its decision of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant        breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 27
      from the oral test in the competition pursuant to the             of the Staff Regulations and of the right to career advancement.
      agreement reached between the Commission and the
      applicant at the informal meeting held before the Fourth
      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            (1 ) Case T-34/01, notice published in OJ C 108, 7.4.2001, p. 28.
      Communities on 20 March 2002 in connection with the
      action brought against the decision of 8 March 2000
      (Case T-34/01);
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
      appointing authority of 13 June 2003, served on 20 June
      2003, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 and admit the applicant to
      the oral test in competition COM/PB/99;                                                     (Case T-270/03)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 239/45)
—     award damages of EUR 8 150,10;
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl,
                                                                        represented by L. Lavitola and C. Reggio d’Aci.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant had brought an action before the Court of                 —      annul that part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/
First Instance against the decision of the selection board in                  97 of 12 June 1997 which is prejudicial to the applicant’s
competition COM/PB/99 not to admit her to the oral test in                     interests, together with annexed documents and, specifi-
that competition (1). At the hearing in that case the parties                  cally, the rules governing the PGI ‘Prosciutto di Norcia’,
agreed on a settlement under which the applicant would be                      with reference to the unlawful provision (in Article 3)
sent corrected copies of her own answers and of the model                      that the pigs must come from Italian farms; make all
answers drawn up by selection board in the competition and                     consequential orders, and order the Commission to pay
the applicant would pass on any comments to that selection                     the costs.
board. Following that agreement, the applicant discontinued
her first action. Having examined the copies sent to her the
applicant asked the selection board to reconsider its previous
decision and admit her to the oral test. The present case arises
over the refusal of that request.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant company operates in the food distribution
                                                                        sector. Through the company’s own supplier it purchased in
In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the rules       the European market from stock farms specialising in white
governing the work of a selection board, misinterpretation and          meat pork-meat intended for preparation and aging by com-
breach of the principle of non-discrimination. She also puts            panies authorised for that purpose with reference to the
forward a plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons       protected geographical indication (PGI) Prociutto di Norcia.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/25
The present action is directed against Commission Regulation               Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex                    ‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-                                            Communities
graphical indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 ( 1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the                                     (Case T-276/03)
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.
                                                                                                    (2003/C 239/46)
The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were             European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.                 la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the                     —     declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside                     that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the                   the steps required to comply with the judgment of
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar                           5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
prohibition.                                                                     Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                 under Community law;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
                                                                                 cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
In support of its claim, the applicant argues:                                   unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
                                                                                 the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
                                                                                 from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of                     the date when the balance due is paid;
      14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
      cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      ucts and foodstuffs (2);
—     Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
      the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
      4 of the Treaty);
                                                                           The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
                                                                           amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
—     breach of the principles of free competition and breach              finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
      of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour              the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
      national undertakings;                                               judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
                                                                           judgment of 5 March 2002 ( 2) a further decision reducing the
                                                                           amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
                                                                           the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
—     the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which
                                                                           actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
      led the Commission to approve the rules.
                                                                           consistent with initial plans.
                                                                           The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
                                                                           acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                           endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
                                                                           inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
                                                                           and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
                                                                           position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
                                                                           subsidy.