CELEX: C2000/135/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-35/00: Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

C 135/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Anthony Gold-
                                                                       stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decisions of 19 April 1999 (concerning Martı́nez                                          ties
    Páramo, Jean-Martial Marenne, Inès Van Lierde and Ron
    Moys) and 29 April 1999 (concerning Anna Sodro and
                                                                                                (Case T-35/00)
    Michael Horgan) signed on behalf of the President of the
    jury by a head of unit;
                                                                                               (2000/C 135/31)
— annul the decisions of 17 November 1999 and 12 January
    2000 (the latter concerning Michael Horgan) rejecting the
    applicants’ claims of 30 June 1999 (brought by Martı́nez
    Páramo, Michael Horgan and Ron Moys) and 29 June                                    (Language of the case: English)
    2000 (brought by Anna Sodro, Inès Van Lierde and
    Jean-Martial Marenne) under Article 90(2) of the Staff
    Regulations;                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Anthony
— order the defendant to grant access to the corrected copies          Goldstein, represented by Raymond St. John Murphy, Solicitor.
    of the written tests taken by the applicants in competitions
    COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                       — declare that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission are
                                                                            in breach of Article 218 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January 2000;
The applicants, who are category A or category B temporary
agents who participated in the tests for the competitions
COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98, take issue with the content               — order the Commission to pay the costs.
of the letter addressed to them by a head of unit of the
Commission, on behalf of the President of the jury, confirming
the marks for the written tests awarded to them by the jury.
That letter stated that the marking system adopted by the jury         Pleas in law and main arguments
had been established objectively and had taken account of
each candidate’s comprehension of the subject-matter, the
structure of the test, and the candidate’s written expression,         The application in the present case is for annulment of the
logic and reasoning ability. It stressed that the tests had been       decision contained in a letter addressed by the Commission on
marked, unnamed, by two readers independently before the               21 January 2000 to Merriman White, Solicitors, concerning a
jury decided upon the final marks, which it awarded in a               request for information from the Commission pursuant to the
uniform fashion for all the candidates.                                order of a national court in the United Kingdom for such
                                                                       assistance, made under the Notice on Cooperation between
                                                                       National Courts and the Commission in applying Articles 81
In support of their claim the applicants allege a failure to           and 82 of the Treaty.
comply with the terms of the notice of competition, infringe-
ment of Article 255 of the Treaty of Rome, Articles 25 and 30
of the Staff Regulations and Annex III thereto laying down the         The purpose of the request for information is to enable the
competition procedure, and the breach of certain general legal         national court to determine whether the legal conditions are
principles, including the principle of sound administration, the       satisfied for the application of the prohibitions contained in
protection of the rights of the defence and the obligation to          Articles 10, 81 and 82 of the Treaty to the anticompetitive
state reasons.                                                         behaviour of the General Medical Council in relation to the
                                                                       conditions for the recognition of medical qualifications in the
                                                                       United Kingdom.
The applicants take the view that they are not in a position to
ascertain that the tests which they failed were in fact marked
properly because they were not informed of the marks awarded           In support of his action the applicant pleads:
to each of them or of the marking system. Furthermore, they
were not allowed to see their corrected papers, and thus it is
impossible for them to make any comparisons or to assess any           — infringement of Article 250 of the Treaty, inasmuch as the
errors they made.                                                           contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement
                                                                            of reasons;
                                                                       — breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 135/17
— infringement of Article 218 of the Treaty by the Rules                 withdrew the contested act thereby rendering each application
    of Procedure of the Commission [C(1999)4000] (1), of                 devoid of purpose.
    18 September 1999 in so far as they do not contain
    effective deterrent sanctions to ensure that the Commission          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
    and its departments operate, in accordance with the                  submitted in the above mentioned cases.
    provisions of the EC Treaty, to protect the proper adminis-
    tration of justice. In particular, the Commission is in breach       ( 1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
    of the obligation to adopt and maintain in force all                 ( 2) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999, p. 11.
    measures necessary to penalise any persons subject to its            ( 3) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 28.
    jurisdiction.                                                        ( 4) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 30.
(1) OJ 252 of 25.9.1999, p. 41.
                                                                         Action brought on 24 February 2000 by PlantaVet Ver-
                                                                         trieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH against the
                                                                         European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Prod-
Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                                                        ucts
Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                                         (Case T-39/00)
                           (Case T-36/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/33)
                          (2000/C 135/32)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Medicinal Products was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 24 February 2000
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                by PlantaVet Vertrieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               whose registered office is in Bad Waldsee (Germany), represent-
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                 ed by Rüdiger Zuck, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address
Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby,                for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,
Solicitor.                                                               4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 January 2000                — annul the Agency’s decisions EMEA/V/BJF/jc./38309/99
    refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee                       and EMEA/V/BJF/jc.38311/99 of 20 December 1999 and
    relating to the consultations required by Article 4(4) of                 the decisions of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
    Sixth VAT Directive prior to the adoption by the United                   Products CVMP/543/99 and CVMP/544/99;
    Kingdom of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 and sections               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    31(2), (4) and Schedule 18 Pt. IV(I) of the 1997 Finance
    Act;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First        The applicant challenges decisions of the European Agency for
    Instance.                                                            the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and of the Committee
                                                                         for Veterinary Medicinal Products which held it impossible to
                                                                         evaluate the substances Arnica and Symphytum from the point
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          of view of residual toxicity. As a result, those substances
                                                                         cannot be entered in Annexes I to III to Council Regulation
The applicants in the present case challenge the refusal by the          (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
defendant to allow access to certain documents for which they            procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
have applied under Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                   veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.
Euratom, of 8 February 1994, on public access to Commission              The applicant markets veterinary medicinal products with
documents (1).                                                           those substances and considers itself affected by the contested
                                                                         decisions. It considers that it provided adequate information
The applicants state in this connection that this application is         for the assessment of residual toxicity and that on the strength
the fourth which they have had to bring against conduct of               of that information classification in Annex 1 or Annex 11
the part of the Commission which has, hitherto, prevented the            should have taken place.
request for access from being considered on the merits. In Cases
T-78/99 (2), T-178/99 (3) and T-356/99 (4) the Commission