CELEX: C2000/047/57
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-323/99: Action brought on 15 November 1999 by INMA, Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and Itainvest SPA against Commission of the European Communities

C 47/32               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.2.2000
Action brought on 11 November 1999 by Franz Lemaître                      Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Itainvest SPA, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian Michele
                                                                          Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples Bar, with an
                        (Case T-317/99)                                   address for service at 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels.
                         (2000/C 47/56)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission decision C(1999) 2532 final of 20 July
                   (Language of the case: French)                              1999;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 — order the Commission of the European Communities to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     pay the costs.
European Communities on 11 November 1999 by Franz
Lemaître resident in Céroux-Mousty, Belgium, represented by
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire                Pleas in law and main arguments
SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                          The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Commission decision C(1999) 2532 final of 20 July 1999
                                                                          concerning aid granted by Italy to the INMA shipyard through
— annul the Commission’s decisions dated 16 February 1999,                Itainvest (formerly GEPI) public holding company, notified by
    12 March 1999 and 24 March 1999, respectively refusing                the Italian Government to the Commission on 3 September
    to award him the expatriation and installation allowances             1999.
    and determining his place of origin at the time of his
    recruitment to be Luxembourg;
                                                                          By that decision the Commission declared unlawful the action
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                               of the public group Itainvest in respect of:
                                                                          — guarantees for the construction of vessels for ‘Corsica
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Ferries’, ‘Pugliola’, ‘Tirrenia’ and ‘Stolt Nielsen’; and
The action concerns, first, the defendant’s refusal to award the          — compensation to the tune of LIT 120,4 thousand million
applicant the expatriation allowance and, secondly, its refusal                for losses made by the INMA shipyard in 1997-1998.
to award him the installation allowance. In support of his
claims the applicant argues that his habitual residence was
outside Belgium when he entered the Commission’s service in               The Commission came to that conclusion on the basis of the
Brussels and that he was therefore entitled to the expatriation           following:
allowance. It follows that it was also appropriate to award him
the installation allowance.                                               — guarantees for construction of the vessels should have
                                                                               been set, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive
                                                                               90/684/EEC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 1540/98, below the ceiling for aid for individual
                                                                               contracts under Article 4(1) of the directive, expressed as a
                                                                               percentage of the annual turnover of the recipient of the
                                                                               aid itself;
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by INMA, Industrie                     — cover for loss constitutes operating aid which, according
Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and Itain-                      to Article 5 of Directive 90/684/EEC, should also be below
vest SPA against Commission of the European Communi-                           that ceiling. In the absence therefore of a restructuring
                               ties                                            plan, operating aid in the form of loss compensation
                                                                               is also incompatible with Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
                        (Case T-323/99)                                        No 1540/98 and cannot be considered to be rescue aid
                                                                               under Community law.
                         (2000/C 47/57)
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants allege:
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        — infringement of Article 7 of the EC Treaty, of Article 1(d)
                                                                               of Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      shipbuilding (1), and of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     1540/98 on aid to shipbuilding (2). The applicants are of
European Communities on 15 November 1999 by INMA,                              the view in this regard in particular that the defendant
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/33
     failed to observe the principle of the investor operating in         — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
     a market economy in considering that the actions of
     Itainvest could not be compared to the conduct of a private
     undertaking since the return on profit was negative from
     the beginning. According to the applicants, that error of            Pleas in law and main arguments
     assessment also concerns the guarantees offered by Itainv-
     est for the performance of individual contracts, as well as
     injections of capital into INMA itself;
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is one of the world’s
                                                                          leading scientists involved in research and clinical trials on
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons              thalassaemia and its treatment. She has engaged in the
     when adopting the relevant Community measures. In                    principal clinical trials for Ferriprox-Deferiprone (hereinafter
     particular, the Commission did not consider whether at               ‘deferiprone’). According to her, these trials indicate that the
     the time when the decision to give the guarantees to and             drug may have significant adverse effects on human health.
     inject capital into INMA was adopted there were any valid            She claims that, as a result of the contested decision granting a
     economic or financial reasons to justify Itainvest’s course          marketing authorisation for deferiprone, there is a risk of
     of action. The defendant further failed to examine individu-         severe damage to health as well as damaging consequences to
     ally the steps taken and assess their nature in the context          her own professional reputation.
     of the economic situation reigning at the material time,
     preferring instead to rely on mere assumptions.
                                                                          The applicant contends that, contrary to the conclusions of
(1) OJ 1990 L 380, p. 27.                                                 the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
(2) OJ 1998 L 121, p. 1.                                                  (EMEA) and the Commission:
                                                                          — the safety of deferiprone depends first and foremost upon
                                                                              its effectiveness: if it is not effective at removing excess
                                                                              iron from the bodies of patients with thalassaemia, the
                                                                              patients who take it will be at risk of iron overload and
                                                                              premature death from iron-induced cardiac and liver
                                                                              dysfunction;
Action brought on 19 November 1999 by Nancy Fern
Olivieri against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          — there is evidence to suggest that deferiprone is toxic to the
munities and the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                                                                              heart and liver and that its use carries considerable dangers
                        Medicinal Products
                                                                              with regard to hepatic fibrosis and the development and
                                                                              progression of cardiac disease;
                          (Case T-326/99)
                                                                          — Further human trials of deferiprone should await the
                           (2000/C 47/58)                                     results of animal toxicity testing.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       The applicant submits that the contested decision and the
                                                                          revised opinion of the EMEA are unlawful because:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal              — the Commission and the EMEA committed errors of law,
Products was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                namely by failing to verify material facts in breach of
European Communities on 19 November 1999 by Nancy Fern                        Articles 7 and 11 of Regulation No 2309/93, after they
Olivieri, represented by Philippe Sands and Rebecca Haynes,                   had received evidence from the applicant that Apotex’s
Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  application for a marketing authorisation contained inac-
Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18 rue des Glacis, L-1628.                       curate and incomplete information on material issues;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — the Commission and the EMEA committed manifest errors
                                                                              in their assessment of the application for a marketing
— annul in its entirety the Commission’s decision of                          authorisation, which included
     25 August granting marketing authorisation for the med-
     icinal product for human use known as Ferriprox-
     Deferiprone;                                                             — errors of fact and
— annul in its entirety the revised opinion of the European
     Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products dated                    — errors of law by failing to consider information relevant
     23 June 1999;                                                                 to the application;