CELEX: C1997/181/32
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 April 1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-84/97)

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
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 181 / 17
     ' interested party' in relation to all aspects of an anti­        The contested decision appears to be based solely on
     dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached               Article 6 ( 12 ) of the International GATT Anti-dumping
     cotton fabrics, originating in the People 's Republic of          Code. This justification is irrelevant to the applicant's
     China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey               rights under Community law and constitutes a
     and not allowing the applicant to inspect the                     misinterpretation of the Anti-dumping Code itself. The
     Commission        non-confidential      documents       and       applicant's request is based in fact on the clear wording of
     information made available by all the parties in that             the EC anti-dumping regulations and not the GATT
     proceeding,                                                       provisions . It is true that consumer associations are in
                                                                       principle not included in the list of ' interested parties' set
                                                                       out in the GATT rules . However, this list does not
— declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in          preclude GATT Members from allowing other parties to
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant            become interested parties . The EC has in fact made use of
     and other consumer organizations to have access to                this possibility Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 . Articles 6 and
     the non-confidential information made available in an             21 of that Regulation should therefore be regarded as
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products non­                constituting a correct implementation of GATT rules as
     commonly sold at a retail level,                                  regards access of consumer organizations to non­
                                                                       confidential information in relation to all elements of anti­
                                                                       dumping proceedings, including dumping, injury and
— make any additional orders which the Court considers                 causality.
     necessary, and
                                                                       (') Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 , of 22 December 1995 , on
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                             protection against dumped imports from Countries not
                                                                           Members of the European Community ( OJ No L 56 , 6 . 3 .
     proceedings .                                                         1996 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant in the present case, a representative
international consumer organization whose object is the
promotion of the interest of consumers in relation to the              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Rea Apostilidis against
policies of the European Union and the representation of                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities
consumer organizations, challenges the decision of the                                         ( Case T-86./97 )
Commission not to recognize it as an interested party, and
not to allow it to have access to all non-confidential                                           ( 97/C 181 /33 )
documents and information made available in an anti­
dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached                                    (Language of the case: French)
cotton fabrics, originating in the People 's Republic of
China, Egypt, India , Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey and               An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in any other anti-dumping proceeding dealing with                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
products non-commonly sold at a retail level . According               Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
to the applicant, the Commission justifies its decision on             by Rea Apostilidis, residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg ),
the basis of the premise that the GATT Anti-dumping                    represented by Alain Levy, of the Paris Bar, with an
Code allows consumers the opportunity to provide                       address for service in Luxembourg care of the applicant,
information on dumping, injury and causality only ' in                 46 Route de Luxembourg, Bereldange .
cases where the product is commonly sold at the retail
level '.                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims to be an interested party on the basis            — annul the contested decisions,
of Council Regulation No 384/96 (').
                                                                       — order the destruction of the documents contained in
                                                                            the parallel file,
It claims first of all that Article 6 ( 7) and Article 21 of
that regulation recognize consumer associations as
interested parties and grant them the opportunity to access            — order the Court of Justice to pay her compensation in
                                                                            the    sum  of Bfrs     1 000 000     for the non-material
the non-confidential files of the proceeding. The regulation
should not limit the right of consumer organizations to                     damage suffered by her,
participate fully in anti-dumping proceedings to 'products
commonly sold at retail level'. It submits, therefore, that            — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
although this particular proceeding does concern products
which are not commonly sold at retail level , it should                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
have the        opportunity to have      access to the non­
confidential     file in   relation  to  all  elements    of  the      The applicant, a grade A 6 official, contests the decision
proceeding. Should this not be the case, a representative              of the appointing authority to suspend the procedure for
consumer organization would not be able to participate                 filling one of the three posts of principal administrator
fully in the evaluation of the Community interest in any                advertised in Vacancy Notice No CJ 91 /95 , for which she
particular anti-dumping investigation .                                 had applied, as well as the decision rejecting the complaint