CELEX: C2000/192/34
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-111/00: Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the Commission of the European Communities

C 192/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.7.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                  The applicant is a Notariatsassessor (associate notary) in Baden-
                                                                            Württemberg (Germany) and acts in a legal advisory capacity
                          (Case T-107/00)                                   there. In 1994 he applied for admission to the aptitude test in
                                                                            accordance with the German Law for admission to the
                                                                            profession of Rechtsanwalt (Eignungsprüfungsgesetz). That
                          (2000/C 192/32)
                                                                            application was refused by the German authorities and courts
                                                                            at several instances. The applicant now argues that the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Eignungsprüfungsgesetz was enacted in implementation of
                                                                            Directive 89/48/EEC (1). He maintains that, after the dismissal
                                                                            decisions by the German authorities and courts, he is individu-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ally and directly affected by that directive, and that Article 1 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  the directive infringes Article 12 EC and several fundamental
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                      rights. The provision gives nationals of other Member States,
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   who hold a diploma satisfying the formal requirements of the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon,               directive, access to the profession of German Rechtsanwalt by
Brussels.                                                                   passing the aptitude test, whereas German nationals holding
                                                                            diplomas of equal value are denied that possibility. In the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 applicant’s submission, that constitutes an inequality in treat-
                                                                            ment that should lead to the annulment of the directive.
— annul the implied rejection of the request for review
     submitted by the CIF to the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989, p. 16.
     Commission on 20 January 2000 and also, if appropriate,
     the letter, dated 17 February 2000, from Mary E. Preston;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                            Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the
                                                                                     Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-40/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v                                           (Case T-111/00)
Commission.
                                                                                                     (2000/C 192/34)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt                            European Communities on 2 May 2000 by British American
          against the Council of the European Union                         Tobacco International (Investments) limited (London,
                                                                            England), represented by Mr. Scott Crosby of Kemmler Rapp
                          (Case T-109/00)                                   Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.
                          (2000/C 192/33)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — annul the Decision of the Commission of 8 March 2000
                                                                                 refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty Com-
                    (Language of the case: German)                               mittee of its meetings of 29-30 April 1998 and
                                                                                 28-29 October 1999 relating to the apparent decision of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          the Committee to classify expanded tobacco as an excisable
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       product and to confirm that apparent decision respectively;
Communities on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt, residing in
Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), represented by Joachim Schorpp,                  — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Rechtsanwalt, Delitzsch (Germany).                                               to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                                 Instance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December
     1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-                The applicant explains that, as a tobacco company, it has a
     education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-                       vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
     fessional education and training of at least three years’              tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
     duration void in relation to the professions of Rechtsanwalt           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) and thus an excisable
     (attorney) and Patentanwalt (patent agent).                            product. The applicant considers the product an intermediary
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 192/19
product, not smokable without further processing, and there-             — Infringement of Article 37 of the EC Treaty: the notification
fore not excisable. There is no published decision determining               system provided for by the regulation in issue disregards
the issue and giving reasons for the classification chosen.                  the objectives of Article 37, inasmuch as its implemen-
Consequently, it requested access to complete minutes of the                 tation will lead to the disappearance of a considerable
meeting of the Excise Duty Committee of 29 and 30 April                      number of economic operators and will result, at the same
1998 and of the subsequent meeting of 28 and 29 October                      time, in the sources of supply of plant protection products
1999 at which the duty treatment of expanded tobacco was                     being concentrated amongst a few multinational under-
apparently determined. This request was definitively refused                 takings, thus enabling the latter to limit supplies and,
by letter of the Secretary General of 8 March 2000.                          consequently, to raise prices.
The applicant contests the validity of this decision. The pleas          — Failure to have regard to Directive 91/414/EEC: the
in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in                contested regulation alters the criteria governing appli-
Case T-41/00.                                                                cations for authorisation to market plant protection prod-
                                                                             ucts, so that they differ from those laid down in the
                                                                             abovementioned directive, which constitutes the legal basis
(1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.                                                    of the regulation.
                                                                         — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, the
                                                                             protection of legitimate expectations and sound manage-
                                                                             ment: the new notification system prevents the applicants
                                                                             from marketing certain substances in respect of which they
                                                                             held marketing authorisations under the system provided
                                                                             for by Directive 91/414/EEC, without that situation being
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A. and                            justified on any public-interest grounds.
7 others against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                    — Infringement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
                                                                             of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO) (3): the contested
                         (Case T-112/00)                                     regulation confers on persons holding the confidential
                                                                             information which must be provided in order to obtain
                                                                             authorisation to market plant protection products an
                         (2000/C 192/35)
                                                                             exclusive protection exceeding that arising from the prin-
                                                                             ciples underlying the provisions of the abovementioned
                   (Language of the case: French)                            Agreement, in particular Articles 8(2) and 39(3) thereof.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A.,                     (3) OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994, p. 214.
established in Barcelona (Spain), and 7 others, represented by
Miquel Roca Junyent and Joan Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona
Bar.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC)
     No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the
     detailed rules for the implementation of the second                 Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinschaft
     and third stages of the work programme referred to in               Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE) against the Commission
     Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC;                                       of the European Communities
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                                                 (Case T-114/00)
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                                              (2000/C 192/36)
The applicants contest Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000(1) laying down the detailed
rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of
the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protec-             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
tion products on the market (2), the object of which is a gradual        European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemein-
examination of active substances placed on the market with a             schaft Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE), of Borken (Federal
view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to that directive.           Republic of Germany), represented by Prof. Matthias Pechstein,
The pleas put forward are as follows:                                    of Berlin.