CELEX: C2002/289/47
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2002 in Case T-223/01: Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International SA v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC — Admissibility — Locus standi — Direct concern)

C 289/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.11.2002
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2002                                                       of 10 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-223/01: Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
in Case T-302/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                        SA v European Parliament and Council of the European
                  the European Communities (1)                                                           Union ( 1)
(Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements                  (Action for annulment — Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC
— Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action mani-                            — Admissibility — Locus standi — Direct concern)
          festly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                                     (2002/C 289/47)
                          (2002/C 289/46)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-223/01, Japan Tobacco Inc., established in Tokyo
                                                                           (Japan), and JT International SA, established in Geneva (Switz-
In Case T-302/00, Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                   erland), represented by O. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John                     Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Com-                 v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Moore),
munities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application for annulment of                 and Council of the European Union (Agent: E. Karlsson):
the Commission’s decision of 7 July 2000 rejecting the                     Application for annulment of Article 7 of Directive No 2001/
applicant’s complaint concerning alleged infringement of                   37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the General Medical Council,                   2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
training bodies and insurance companies — the Court of First               administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,             manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made             2001 L 194 p. 26), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
an order on 12 July 2002 in which it:                                      composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
                                                                           P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           10 September 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in
                                                                           2.    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
      Cases T-302/00 R and T-302/00 R II, and pay the costs
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-302/00 R.
                                                                           3.    There is no need to rule upon the applications to intervene.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9 December 2000.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.