CELEX: C2003/275/81
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-311/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

C 275/48               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
                                                                           report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
                                                                           investigator who remained authorised.
—     annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director removing one of the investigators from the
      Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
                                                                           (1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
      of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures          (2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
      adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;                    of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
                                                                               conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
                                                                               in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.
—     annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
      trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;
—     annul the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
      investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
      adopting that report or its conclusions;
—     annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of                 Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
                                                                           GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
      OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
                                                                                                of the European Union
      of 4 February 2003 against that report;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-                                             (Case T-311/03)
      sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
      EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 275/81)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
      sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to                                     (Language of the case: German)
      his career;
—     order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
      has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the             An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      administrative complaints against the contested decision             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      and report;                                                          of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
                                                                           Nürburgring GmbH, represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
                                                                           Dr M.A. Dauses.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
                                                                                 of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                 of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                                 sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already                       in particular, void;
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats             —     order the defendant to bear the costs.
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of           The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-             ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission                  support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal                   because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and           is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of                Nürburgring.
 ---pagebreak--- 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.