CELEX: C1996/354/57
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 September 1996 by MD Foods Amba and Others against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-139/96)

No C 354/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
According to the applicants, the contested decision is based         Action brought on 10 September 1996 by MD Foods Amba
on the view that CG Vita is not functionally independent             and Others against Commission of the European
because :                                                                                        Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-l 39/96 )
— the operation forms part of wider cooperation between                                         ( 96/C 354/57 )
     the founding undertakings;
— the functions of providing assistance on technical                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
     matters , management and distribution which those
     undertakings are to continue to carry out for the joint
     venture , in addition to their initial contributions , are
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
     wide-ranging and of particular financial significance ;         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 10 September
— the features of CG Vita 's insurance products are not              1996 by MD Foods and by Danske Mejeriers
     such as to distinguish them appreciably from those at           Fsellesorganisation on behalf of Klovermaelk Amba,
     present marketed by Generali .                                  Logismose Produktion A/S, Mejeriselkabet Vesthimmer­
                                                                     land , Nordex Food A/S, Sinai Landmejeri and Stedager
                                                                     Andelsmejeri , represented by Georg Lett, Advokat, assisted
In the applicants ' view, however, the fact that the setting up      by N. Scandamis , Advokat, with an address for service in
of CG Vita forms part of wider cooperation between                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roland Assa , 1 Rue
Generali and Unicredito is irrelevant for two reasons : first,
                                                                     J. P. Brasseur .
the cooperation of other kinds remains , at the present stage,
purely hypothetical and , in the event of its taking place , such
cooperation would be the subject of appropriate agreements
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
which the parties would, if necessary, submit for appraisal
by the competent anti-trust authorities; secondly, the
envisaged forms of cooperation have not the slightest link           — declare invalid and annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
with CG Vita but relate to cases of preferential relationships           No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 (') on the registration of
which Generali and Unicredito would enter into with each                 geographical indications and designations of origin
other in relation to their main areas of business .                      under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so far as concerns the
                                                                         registration of feta as a protected designation of
Furthermore , CG Vita fully meets the requirement of                     origin ;
functional independence in so far as it has sufficient
financial resources, will use a sales network based on
facilities which its bank shareholders intend to provide for         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
it, and will initially have a staff of 15 . The Commission 's
restrictive approach in that connection gives rise to legal
uncertainty for the parties, for which there is no need as far       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
as protection of the market from restrictions of competition
is concerned .
                                                                     The applicants make the following submissions in support
                                                                     of their claim for annulment :
The Commission's view that the requirement of functional
independence is not met takes no account of the special              1 . Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) is not
nature of the insurance market, in which a set of controls                applicable pursuant to Article 1 73 and Article 1 84 of the
and prior authorizations is designed to guarantee the                     Treaty with the result that, in so far as concerns the
independence and financial solvency of the companies                      registration of feta , Commission Regulation ( EC )
operating in that sector.                                                 No 1107/96 was adopted without a valid enabling
                                                                          provision and therefore infringes an essential procedural
                                                                          requirement within the meaning of the second
Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission failed
adequately to state the reasons for its decision, in so far as            paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
the alleged absence of functional independence is based not
on the information available but on the view that the                     — Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92
probability of such independence is insufficient . If on the                  infringes Article 30 of the Treaty .
other hand the Commission had expressed doubts
concerning the extent and the duration of the contributions          2 . Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 infringes essential
from the parent companies, the parties would have had an                  procedural requirements which , in so far as concerns the
opportunity to provide further information and possibly                   registration of feta, renders it invalid under the second
amend the agreement .                                                     paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
                                                                          — The Greek legislation was introduced too late for it
                                                                              to be possible for feta to be registered under
                                                                              Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96             KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/29
      — The Commission did not submit a proposal for a                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          generic list to the Council before the entry into force
          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .                           — annul the disciplinary decision removing the applicant
                                                                            from his post, adopted by the defendant on 19 January
      — Failure to make public the product specification for                1996 ,
          feta .
      — Failure to make public the list of approved                     — annul the express decision of 1 7 June 1 996 by which the
          supervisory bodies .                                              defendant rejected the applicant's complaint of 5 March
                                                                             1996 ,
      — In determining whether feta should be registered, the
          Commission failed to follow sound administrative              — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
          practice .
3 . Feta does not meet the conditions for registration                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and the
      registration of feta therefore infringes rules of law             The applicant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state
      relating to the application of the Treaty within the              the reasons on which a decision is based . He states that the
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the             contested disciplinary decision is based on a finding against
      Treaty:                                                           him in criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Premiere
                                                                        Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, but fails to take
      — Feta is a generic description .                                 account of the mitigating circumstances accepted by that
                                                                        court at two successive stages in the criminal proceedings .
      — The designation feta does not fulfil the conditions             The applicant considers that the disciplinary authority
          for registration as an indirect designation of origin         thereby failed in its obligation to give reasons , by virtue of
          under Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                   which it was required to examine all relevant information
          No 2081 /92 .
                                                                        before adopting the major penalty of removal of the
                                                                        applicant from his post, and committed a manifest error of
4 . The registration of feta infringes fundamental principles           assessment .
      of EC law and thus the Treaty, including Article 6 and
      Article 40 ( 3 ), and the principle of the protection of          The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to have regard
      legitimate expectations for the purposes of the second            for the welfare of officials . He criticizes the disciplinary
      paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty:                           authority for not taking account of his state of health, even
      — The registration of feta as a protected designation of          though the criminal court considered that it warranted a
          origin for the benefit of Greek producers represents          shorter period of imprisonment, suspended subject only to
          discrimination against the applicants in breach of            the condition that his health be monitored by a doctor. For
          Article 6 and Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                 the applicant, reasonable discharge of the duty to have
                                                                        regard for the welfare of officials justified a minor
      — The registration of feta in Regulation ( EC )                   disciplinary sanction rather than the major sanction of
          No 1107/96 breaches the principle of the protection           removal from his post.
          of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Finally, the applicant contends that the disciplinary decision
C ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                               undermined his right to a fair hearing since, in its preamble ,
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             it refers to his ' subsequent attitude' regarding the matters
                                                                        criticized, but gives no specific information relating to such
                                                                        matters .
Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the
                        European Parliament
                           ( Case T-144/96 )                            Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Gra^a de
                                                                        Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European
                             ( 96/C 354/58 )                                                       Communities
                                                                                                ( Case T-146/96 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                    96/C 354/59 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought                                   (Language of the case: French)
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 September 1996 by 'Y', represented by
Gerard Colin , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 September