CELEX: C1996/269/57
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 July 1996 by Pharos SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-105/96)

No C 269/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Franz Eppe against the             newly-created post, contrary to Articles 5 , 7, 25 , 29 and 45
        Commission of the European Communities                       of the Staff Regulations and Annex I thereto . The procedure
                        ( Case T-99/96 )                             adopted shows that the appointment decision in question
                                                                     was taken by reference to his identity and his personal file,
                          ( 96/C 269/56 )
                                                                     contrary to the principle that the appointing authority is
                                                                     under a duty to fix the level of a post as adviser or Head of
                (Language of the case: French)                       Unit by reference to its importance, independently of the
                                                                     qualifications, identity and personal file of the candidate to
                                                                     be appointed . The adviser's post in question was never the
An action against the Commission of the European                     subject of a prior, independent and objective decision as to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    its level .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1996 by
Franz Eppe , residing at Tervueren ( Belgium ), represented by
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service      The applicant also maintains that there has been a disregard
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du             of the criteria laid down by the Court of First Instance in
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                    Case T- 10/94 Kratz v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR-SC
                                                                     I-A-103 , concerning the Commission decision of 19 July
                                                                     1988 amending the procedure for filling middle­
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         management posts, and infringement also of the duty to
                                                                     have due regard for the interests of officials and the
— annul the Commission 's implied decision rejecting the             principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                     non-discrimination .
    applicant's request of 31 July 1995 under Article 90 of
    the Staff Regulations for objective re-examination by the
    Advisory Committee on Appointments and by the                    The Commission gave no justification for holding that his
    Commission as appointing authority of the level of his           request for objective re-examination of the level of the post
    post as adviser to the EAGGF,                                    could not be entertained, given that that question was not
                                                                     dealt with before the Community judicature in Joined Cases
— annul       the   Commission 's      express    decision   of      T-59/91 and T-79/91 , which concerned the alteration of the
    16 November 1995 ( note from Mr Franz De Koster ),               organization plan of DG VI, appointing the applicant to the
    rejecting the applicant's request of 31 July 1995 under          post of adviser while rejecting his candidature for his former
    Article 90 of the Staff Regulations for the Commission 's        post as Head of Unit. Nor, the applicant argues, has the
    assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in an       Commission denied that the manner in which the level of the
    action for damages ,                                             post to be filled was fixed was unlawful , or that it would
                                                                     normally be filled at Grade A 3 .
— annul the Commission 's express decision of 29 March
    1996 , notified to the applicant on 3 April 1996 ,               The applicant also challenges the Commission 's refusal to
    rejecting his complaint lodged on 1 December 1995 ,              assist him, in accordance with Article 24 of the Staff
    No R.9 17/95 , against the implied decision referred to          Regulations, in the proceedings he intends to take against
    above , rejecting his request under Article 90 of the Staff      his former legal adviser for the negligent way in which the
    Regulations for objective re-examination of the level of         latter defended his interests before the Court of First
    his post,                                                        Instance .
— annul the Commission 's express decision of 29 March
     1996 , notified to the applicant on 3 April 1996 ,
    rejecting his complaint lodged on 1 December 1995 ,
    No R.9 17/95 , concerning the rejection of his request for
    assistance in an action for damages,
— declare the Commission liable to pay compensation ,                Action brought on 8 July 1996 by Pharos SA against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                                    Case T-105 /96
                                                                                              ( 96/C 269/57 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
 The applicant, a former Grade A 4 Head of Unit in DG IV,
 challenges the Commission's refusal to reconsider the
 conditions of his appointment as adviser to the EAGGF,               An action against the Commission of the European
 which took place on 1 November 1990 without promotion                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 to Grade A 3 .
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 1996 by
                                                                      Pharos SA, whose registered office is at Seraing ( Belgium ),
 It is clear, in his submission , that the Commission                 represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele , of the Brussels
 automatically aligned the post of adviser to the EAGGF at            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Grade A 4 , without first objectively deciding its level as a        Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt .
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/25
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         clinical trials allowed by the competent authorities after
                                                                     notification or authorization in accordance with the
                                                                     legislation in force, and not resulting in the formation of
— declare that, in breach of its obligations, the
                                                                     residues constituting a risk to human health . In any event,
     Commission failed to follow the procedure to include            the Commission was not entitled to invoke the moratorium
     somatosalm produced by the applicant on the list of             on BST to oppose the classification of the product in
     substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                     question in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
     Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                     Finally, the applicant argues that the omission in question
— order the Commission to pay the applicant provisional              infringes the principle of sound administration, in that it
     damages of Bfr 512 million, or, at the very least,              goes against the objectives which the Community has set
     provisional damages of Bfr 353 million,                         itself in encouraging research and development in the
                                                                     biotechnology sector , in which Europe is significantly
                                                                     behind .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a Belgian biotechnology company . The
development and use of smoltine, a derivate of a protein ,           Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung
somatosalm , used naturally by salmon to control their               Stahl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
osmoregulation capacity, is extremely important for the
future of the applicant, which wishes to extend its activities                                 ( Case T- 106/96 )
in the area of pharmaceutical products for the aquaculture                                       ( 96/C 269/58 )
sector .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: German)
The applicant accuses the Commission of preventing the
adoption of an implementing regulation to include
somatosalm in Annex I , II or III to Regulation ( EEC )              An action against the Commission of the European
No 2377/90 , laying down a Community procedure for the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary                Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 1996 by
medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, which             Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl , Diisseldorf, represented by
would have allowed the product in question to be marketed .          Joachim Sedemund , Rechtsanwalt, Berlin , with an address
It argues that, under Article 8 ( 3 ) of that Regulation , the       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May ,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
Commission was obliged , in the absence of an opinion from
the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP),
to submit a proposition to the Council without delay as to           The applicant claims that the Court should:
the measures to be taken . It appears that the Commission
submitted a draft implementing regulation to the CVMP,               — annul the defendant's decision ( 96/315/ECSC ) of
including somatosalm in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC )                    7 February 1 996 concerning aid to be granted by Ireland
No 2377/90 . The Committee did not, however, issue an                     to the steel company Irish Steel,
opinion , for lack of a qualified majority , four Member States
having been opposed and six others having abstained on               — in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the
the ground that the Council 's moratorium on bovine                       defendant in so far as it allows Irish Steel to increase its
somatotrophine ( BST) would be ' indirectly ' called into                 production level above the total production level in the
 question if another somatotrophine were to appear on the                 1994/95 financial year,
market .
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicant makes the legal argument that abstention by
 the Commission from submitting a proposal for measures to            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 be taken is generally accepted as constituting a culpable
 failure to act, and that the absence of a Commission
 proposal prevents the adoption of an implementing                    The applicant complains that the contested decision
 regulation which could make it possible to market smoltine           infringes Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty and the fifth ' steel
 in the Community .                                                   aids code', in a manner which is not justified by Article 95 of
                                                                      the ECSC Treaty. The Commission is permitting individual
                                                                      Member States to subsidize unprofitable State-owned steel
 It maintains that the effects of that failure to act are             companies on a repeated basis and on so massive a scale that
 particularly damaging, since, as from 1 January 1997 , the           the subsidy payments exceed the equity capital of the
 administration to animals used in food production                    undertaking concerned . This is contrary to the
 of veterinary medicinal products which contain                       Community 's aids policy in respect of privately operated
 pharmacologically active substances and do not appear in             steel undertakings, the subsidizing of which is subject to
 Annex I, II or III will be prohibited , save in the case of          rigorous supervision . The subsidizing of individual