CELEX: C2001/061/39
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-382/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company against the Council of the European Union

C 61/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.2.2001
By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-               —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-                          decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common                           compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-                     the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.                  information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
                                                                               applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                               worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the                future career;
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
are of direct and individual concern to them.                                  decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                               compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                               applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,                 candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts                 lost an opportunity of promotion;
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual              Pleas in law and main arguments
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-             The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of        appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
competition on the markets concerned.                                    unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
                                                                         transport’.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
                                                                         in law:
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                               the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-                             rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-                           principle of equal treatment;
                                ties
                                                                         —     a manifest error of assessment in the present case;
                         (Case T-376/00)                                 —     misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations.
                          (2001/C 61/38)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            Company against the Council of the European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon                                      (Case T-382/00)
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                                   (2001/C 61/39)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and               An action against the Council of the European Union was
      other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;                                        Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
                                                                         a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application          represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
      of the applicant for the post in question;                         Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 61/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  (b) the Council wilfully disregarded the findings of the
                                                                                   CVMP.
—     annul the Council Decision of 28 September 2000
      amounting to a refusal to adopt a Maximum Residue                 2.   Breach of principle of proportionality in light of the
      Limit under Regulation No 2377/90, with regard to                      special circumstances of the case, namely:
      recombinant bovine somatotrophin;
                                                                             (a)   that there is no scientific evidence of a risk to human
                                                                                   health;
—     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
      Council.                                                               (b) that milk or milk products are imported from third
                                                                                   countries where BST is administered to cows; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (c)   any public-health objective has already been more
                                                                                   than adequately assured through the adoption of a
                                                                                   ban on the marketing of BST.
The applicant is a life sciences company, in the business of
developing products to meet the growing global need for                 3.   Wrongful or disproportionate application of the pre-
food. It has developed a veterinary medicinal product called                 cautionary principle.
sometribove. This product is classified as a recombinant bovine
somatotrophin (‘BST’) and when administered to dairy cows
has the effect of increasing their milk production. Before              (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
veterinary products, such as sometribove, can be put on the
Community market, a maximum residue limit (‘MRL’) must be
established, in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1).
                                                                        Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd.,
On 14 January 1997, the Commission decided to reject the                against the Council of the European Union, the European
request for the inclusion of sometribove (bovine somatropine)           Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, in spite                                         munities
of the fact that the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Products (‘CVMP’) had come to the conclusion that it was not
necessary for the protection of public health to establish MRL                                   (Case T-383/00)
for BST and had recommended the inclusion of this product
in the list of substances not subject to MRL in Annex II. This                                    (2001/C 61/40)
decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance.
As the result of the judgment, the Commission decided to send                             (Language of the case: English)
the file back to the CVMP for a new opinion on BST. In July
1999, the CVMP re-evaluated BST taking into account all                 An action against the Council of the European Union, the
the latest available scientific information and confirmed its           European Parliament and the Commission of the European
previous opinion that residues of BST are safe and that BST             Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
should therefore be included in Annex II. On 13 July 2000,              of the European Communities on 22 December 2000 by
the Commission submitted to the Council its final proposition           Beamglow Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of
for inclusion of BST in Annex II. On 28 September 2000, the             the United Kingdom, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
Council decided not to adopt the Commission’s proposal. It is           Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).
this decision that is challenged by the applicant in the present
case.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant contends that the contested decision should be            —    order the European Community, as represented here
annulled for the following reasons:                                          by the Council of the European Union, the European
                                                                             Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                             munities, as jointly and severally liable, to repair the
1.    Infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 2377/90.                   damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
      The applicant maintains that:                                          unlawful behaviour of the European Community and to
                                                                             set the amount of compensation at GBP 2 042 000 for
      (a)   the Council could not reject the Commission’s                    the period up to December 2000 plus GBP 79 000 per
            proposal in the absence of any new information or                month from that date to the date of judgment or any
            any reassessment of existing information on the                  other amount reflecting the actual damage suffered by
            bases of which the opinion of the CVMP might be                  the applicant as established by it in the course of the
            called into question;                                            proceedings;