CELEX: C2000/285/21
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-174/00: Action brought on 28 June 2000 by Société Biret International against the Council of the European Union

C 285/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.10.2000
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000              Action brought on 28 June 2000 by Société Biret Inter-
      concerning the withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on           national against the Council of the European Union
      the market of medicinal products for human use containing
      the substances ‘Clobenzorex’, ‘Fenbutrazat’, ‘Fenproporex’,
      ‘Mazindol’, ‘Mefenorex’, ‘Norpseudoephredin’, ‘Phenmetrazin’                                 (Case T-174/00)
      and ‘Propylhexedrin’ (C(2000) 608) is suspended pending the
      making of the orders bringing the proceedings for interim relief                             (2000/C 285/21)
      to a close.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 28 June 2000 by Société Biret International,
                                                                          established in Paris, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues, of the
Action brought on 16 May 2000 by Robert Schochaert                        Paris Bar.
         against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-131/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 285/20)                                 —     establish the liability of the European Community in the
                                                                                court-supervised liquidation of the company known as
                                                                                Biret International;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     order the Council of the European Union to pay to Biret
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         International damages in the sum of FRF 87 006 000;
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 May 2000 by Robert Schochaert, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, of the Brussels Bar.          —     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
                                                                                costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority refusing             Pleas in law and main arguments
      to promote the applicant to grade B1, and rule that he
      should be promoted to that grade, with retroactive effect
      from the 1999 promotions procedure, within one month                The applicant, a company incorporated under French law
      from the date of the Court’s decision, failing which the            which is currently in liquidation and the object of which is
      defendant is to pay a periodic penalty of 5 000 Belgian             trade in various agricultural food products, particularly meat,
      francs per day of delay.                                            claims compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by it as
                                                                          a result of the prohibition of imports into the Community of
                                                                          beef and veal, especially of American origin. The company is
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           co-owned, as to 34 % of its capital, by Cargill USA.
The applicant maintains, first, that the refusal to include his
name on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade             That prohibition was decided upon and implemented pursuant
B1 was based on an error of fact, namely that the position                to Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting
occupied by him since 1998 did not involve responsibilities               the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a
justifying a promotion by comparison with the other candi-                hormonal action (1) and Council Directive 72/462/EEC of
dates for promotion. He claims in that regard that the position           12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection prob-
which he has occupied since 1998 — and which he occupied,                 lems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh
in particular, at the time of the decision refusing his promotion         meat from third countries (2). Those two directives were
— corresponds, in fact and in law, to a post involving the                replaced by Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996
duties of a grade B1 official.                                            concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of
                                                                          certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action
Second, he considers that the fact that he has been refused               and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
promotion to grade B1 sixteen years in succession, despite his            88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (3).
having been awarded either ‘particularly high’ or ‘exceptionally
high’ grades in his staff reports, can be explained only by the
existence of some deep-rooted ill-feeling towards him at a                The applicant states in that regard that, since neither the
certain level in the hierarchy above him.                                 Community legislation nor the national legislation has progres-
                                                                          sed towards a lifting of the prohibitions or the introduction of
                                                                          a more flexible system, it has not been possible for the flow of
                                                                          business which it had envisaged to materialise.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 285/11
The applicant asserts, first of all, that the two directives referred      In August 1993 the applicant, a Community Medical Specialist
to above infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate           in Rheumatology submitted to the Commission under
expectations. It was legitimately entitled to expect, first, that          Article 3(2) of Council regulation No. 17 an application for a
the prohibition of the hormones at issue was merely a                      finding that the GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the
temporary measure which was to apply pending the pro-                      EEC Treaty.
duction of an appropriate scientific assessment of the question
whether or not they presented a danger to human health and,
                                                                           The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
second, that the scope of the derogations provided for in
                                                                           in case T-286/97 Goldstein/Commission (1). According to the
Directive 88/146 would be gradually extended to cover the
                                                                           applicant, the conditions laid down in Article 232 EC are
categories of animals which it proposed to import from the
                                                                           satisfied because 80 months have elapsed since it submitted,
United States into the Community.
                                                                           on 20 September 1995, his observations on the Commission’s
                                                                           letter of 9 February 1995 under Article 6 of Council Regulation
The applicant also pleads infringement of the WTO agree-                   No 99/63.
ments. It states in that regard that the European Union has
been censured by the dispute-settlement body of the WTO for
having enacted Directives 81/602, 88/146 and 96/22, on                     (1) OJ EC C 7, of 10.1.1998, p. 25.
account of infringement of the SPS agreement.
(1) OJ L 70 of 16.3.1988, p. 16.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December) JO L 302, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 3.
                                                                           Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-176/00)
Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Goldstein
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                (2000/C 285/23)
                          (Case T-175/00)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 285/22)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV, a
                   (Language of the case: English)                         company incorporated under Netherlands law, established in
                                                                           Amsterdam, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst and L.H. van
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Lennep, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo
European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Gold-                      Hemmer.
stein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
Merriman White, London.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the decision of 24 February 2000 addressed to it
                                                                                 by the Commission of the European Communities, in so
—     declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the                         far as Article 1(2) of that decision is concerned;
      Commission has failed to act by not having delivered a
      decision on the applicant’s complaint lodged with the                —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission on 10 August 1993;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In Article 1(2) of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                           found that remission of import duties in respect of a specific
                                                                           sum was not justified.
The applicant challenges the inaction of the Commission in
relation to one complaint, focused on the alleged anti-
competitive practices on the part of the General Medical                   The applicant’s claim is based on the following grounds:
Council (GMC), a statutory body which regulates the medical
profession in the territory of the United Kingdom.                         (a)   violation of the rights of the defence: