CELEX: C1996/354/63
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-152/96)

No C 354/32            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
his classification in Grade B 5 on his recruitment to the Unit        Denis Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard, of Liedekerke
on the Coordination of Fraud Prevention ( Uclaf).                     Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt &
                                                                      Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
In support of his action he claims to possess exceptional and
very specific qualifications in the fields covered by his duties .
That professional experience was acquired in the context of           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the Irish customs authorities and as a member of the
temporary staff in Uclaf at the Commission .
                                                                      — declare in accordance with Article 184 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           that Directive 96/22/EC, in so far as it prohibits the
First, he claims that the rule laid down by the Court of First             placing on the market of veterinary medicinal products
Instance in the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95                 containing beta-agonists for administration for
Alexopoulou has been disregarded . The applicant considers                 therapeutic purposes to farm animals, is unlawful and
that he fulfils the condition regarding special and                        therefore cannot serve as a justification for the
exceptional qualifications referred to in that judgment.                   restrictions      contained      in     Regulation       ( EC )
According to the applicant, it follows that, by not applying               No 1312/96 ,
to him the exception provided for in Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations, the appointing authority committed a
manifest error of assessment .                                        — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 in so far as it
                                                                           restricts the validity of the MRLs established for
                                                                           Clenbuterol to certain specific therapeutic purposes,
According to the applicant, the Commission merely relied                   and
on general arguments in the contested decision, namely its
own practice of recuiting to the starting grade even in
specialised fields , and on Article 27 of the Staff Regulations,      — order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
which imposes on it very high standards of recruitment,                    proceedings .
without countering any of the specific and precise
arguments he had put forward in his complaint .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant         The application seeks the annulment of Commission
treated him unfairly by comparison with certain of his                Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 ( OJ No L 170,
colleagues who, having been members of the temporary                  9 . 7. 1996 , p. 8 ) in so far as it restricts the validity of the
                                                                      maximum residue limits . ( MRLs ) which it establishes for
staff, were able to retain their grade after passing
competitions to establish them . This situation arises from           Clenbuterol hydrochloride to certain                therapeutical
the fact that the applicant devoted particular efforts to keep        indications in bovine and equine animals .
his post and therefore participated in a general competition
in 1991 , whereas competitions which were less stringent             The applicants state that the Commission has justified such
were held at the end of 1992/early 1993 to establish other            refusal exclusively by the fact that Council Directive
colleagues who , according to the applicant, had not shown            96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 ( OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p. 3 )
the same readiness .                                                  prohibits the administration of Clenbuterol to farm animals
                                                                      except for some specific therapeutic purposes in equines and
                                                                      in cows . They submit, however, that the provisions of that
                                                                      directive are contrary to EC law, as has already been shown
                                                                      in Case T-125/96 ( OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 15 ). They
                                                                      maintain therefore that those provisions should be declared
                                                                      inapplicable in this case .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer                     Accordingly, the applicants consider that the contested
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                   provisions are not substantiated by a proper statement of
Limited Partnership against the Commission of the                    reasons and that, as a result, the contested Regulation does
                     European Communities                             not comply with the requirements set out in Article 190 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty .
                        ( Case T-152/96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/63 )
                                                                     They further maintain that the provisions of the contested
                                                                      Regulation deprive them, without any valid justification, of
               (Language of the case: English)                       their right to manufacture and market most of their
                                                                     veterinary medicinal products containing Clenbuterol,
                                                                      although, in conformity with the relevant EC regulatory
An action against the Commission of the European                      requirements , they hold licences for the marketing of their
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     products .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September
19 96 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H.
Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership, represented by