CELEX: C2003/275/82
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-313/03: Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies Keyman against the Commission of the European Communities

15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/49
The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version                 —     Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach                   2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC                   2001;
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.                   —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in                   pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban                  Court of First Instance, together with the expenses
on sponsoring.                                                                  necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
                                                                                and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
                                                                                for service, travel and subsistence expenses and the
                                                                                remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC                those rules.
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the                In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
directive is a disproportionate measure, in view both of                  Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community                 assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.
(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR
    I-8419.
                                                                          Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
                                                                          Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-314/03)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 275/83)
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                            munities
                        (Case T-313/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 275/82)                                   European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
                                                                          Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
                                                                          by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies                           overpaid to it;
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.