CELEX: C1997/181/31
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 March 1997 by Monsanto Europe SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-71/97)

No C 181 / 16        EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 26 March 1997 by Monsanto Europe                    The applicant claims the Commission decision should be
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                 annulled on the following grounds.
                        ( Case T-71 /97 )
                                                                      First, the Commission failed to comply with the proper
                          ( 97/C 181 /31 )                            Community procedure for setting MRLs when it rejected
                                                                      the applicant's case for inclusion of Sometribove in one of
               (Language of the case: English)                        the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
                                                                      Second, in making its decision the Commission in fact
An action against the Commission of the European                      acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     moratorium . In particular, the decision prevents the
Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 1997                 applicant from conducting limited practical tests on the
by Monsanto Europe SA, represented by Clive Stanbrook                 effects of BST products .
QC and Robert MacLean, of Stanbrook and Hooper,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            Third, in arriving at its decision the Commission acted in
offices of Arsene Kronshagen , 22, rue Marie-Adelaide .               breach of the principle of legal certainty, infringing the
                                                                      applicant's legitimate expectation that the conditions for
                                                                      the granting of an MRL would be based on a scientific
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          assessment of the product.
— annul the Commission decision of 14 January 1997                    Fourth, the Commission infringed the principle of
    concerning a definition of a position, in accordance              proportionality in adopting the present decision . The
    with Article 175 of the EC Treaty, on the referral of             interference in the applicant's commercial activities by the
     the applicant's application to the Committee for                 Commission 's decision is disproportionate to any benefit
     Adaptation to Technical Progress and on the inclusion            that might be achieved by refusing to approve the product
                                                                      under one of the Annexes mentioned above .
     of bovine somatotrophin in Annex II of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                      Fifth, the Commission misused its powers by basing its
                                                                      decision on irrelevant considerations and motives of a
— order the Commission to pay damages, and                            political nature .
                                                                      Finally, the Commission 's decision infringes a number of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              agreements approved by the European Community under
                                                                      the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of multilateral
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   trade negotiations. The Commission's decision is itself
                                                                      incompatible with the terms of the GATT 1994 and
                                                                      the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
The applicant, a Belgian company, has developed a                     Phytosanitary Measures .
veterinary medicinal product called Sometribove which is
classified as a recombinant bovine somatotrophin ( BST ).
Prior to marketing this product, the applicant was
required to obtain a marketing authorization from the EC
Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP ).
Before such an authorization was obtained, Council                    Action brought on 2 April 1997 by the European Office
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 was adopted establishing a              of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ) against the Commission of
Community procedure for the setting of minimum residue                                   the European Communities
limits ( MRLs ) for veterinary medicinal products in                                           ( Case T-84/97 )
foodstuffs of animal origin .
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 181 /32 )
After the adoption of that Regulation, it became necessary                           (Language of the case: English)
for the applicant to obtain a listing of Sometribove under
one of the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/             An action against the Commission of the European
90 before a marketing authorization could be approved .               Communities was brought before the Court of Instance of
An application for an MRL was made by the applicant                   the European Communities on 2 April 1997 by the
through the procedure established under Council                       European Office of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ), represented
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 . By decision of 14 January             by Bernard O'Connor, member of the Law Society of
1997 the Commission rejected the applicant's request that             Ireland, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
its case should be referred to the Committee for the                  offices of Arsene Kronshagen, 22, Rue Marie Adelaide .
Adaptation to Technical Progress on the grounds that by
virtue of Council Decision 94/936/EC the marketing and                The applicant claims that the Court should :
administration of BST to dairy cows could not be
authorized and that, therefore, the applicant had no                  — declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
interest in obtaining an MRL . The moratorium introduced                   EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission addressed
by Council Decision 94/936/EC was the principal ground                     to the applicant contained in a letter dated 3 February
for the Commission arriving at its decision .                              1997, refusing to consider the applicant as an