CELEX: C2000/135/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-36/00: Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities

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