CELEX: C2003/070/40
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-397/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

C 70/24                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       —    access, permission to copy and to produce before              Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
            the courts all documents relating to the project              and Others against the Commission of the European
            PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or                                            Communities
            indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
            list enclosed with the originating request together
            with all the elements of the internal investigation                                    (Case T-397/02)
            file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
            R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
            the audit report of 21 December 2000;                                                   (2003/C 70/40)
       —    financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire                           (Language of the case: Danish)
            cost of defending the action seeking compensation
            for non-material, professional and material damage
            suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
            against her;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods,
                                                                          Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
                                                                          represented by Georg Lett, advokat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for              —      Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM                                 14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a                        under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
contract for the provision of statistical services.                              Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to              protection of geographical indications and designations of
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the               origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2) introduced
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to                    Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial                   stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending             12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-             in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.              designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
                                                                          16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
                                                                          No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-            regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission               as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.
documents and infringement of Article 19 of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and              The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
permission to produce such documents before the courts.                   the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
                                                                          the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
                                                                          lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February           ‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
     1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,         enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
     58).                                                                 pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
                                                                          nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
                                                                          made public.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/25
The applicants further claim that ‘feta’ does not fulfil the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
conditions for registration pursuant to Council Regulation
No 2081/92. ‘Feta’ is a generic term which cannot be protected
under that regulation. ‘Feta’ is a generally used term of reference         —     declare the present application admissible;
for a given dairy product. The evolution in the Greek legislation
shows that ‘feta’ has been construed as a generic term in
Greece as well, just as the Council and the Commission in                   —     annul the Commission Decision resulting in the filing of
their formulations have treated feta as a generic product.                        the third complaint ( 1) on 30 October 2002 before the
Furthermore, Greek feta is not one uniform type of product,                       New York District Court against the applicants, as
leading to the conclusion that the aim is in reality the                          publicly announced by the Commission in its Press
protection of Greek cheese per se.                                                Release IP/05/1592 of 31 October 2002;
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
Lastly, the applicants submit that the registration of the term                   proceedings, including the costs of the applicants and
‘feta’ is contrary to the principle laid down in Article 7(4) of                  any intervening parties.
Council Regulation No 2081/92, fundamental principles of EC
law and therefore the Treaty, including Article 12 EC and
Article 34(3) EC, and also the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
     amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard
     to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p 10).
( 2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1.
                                                                            The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
( 4) Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and               by the Commission on behalf of the European Community
     Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                                 and a number of Member States before a United States court
                                                                            seeking treble and punitive damages, equitable relief and
                                                                            various types of injunctive relief for the applicants’ alleged
                                                                            participation in money laundering schemes.
                                                                            The applicants submit that the European Community, rep-
                                                                            resented by the Commission, lacks the competence to adopt
                                                                            the contested act and to bring action on its own behalf and on
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          behalf of Member States for the following reasons:
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acqui-
sition Corp. against the Commission of the European                         —     Article 2 EC does not confer any specific and autonomous
                             Communities                                          powers upon the institutions;
                             (Case T-6/03)                                  —     Article 281 EC merely states that the EC enjoys legal
                                                                                  personality, without addressing any issue of competence;
                            (2003/C 70/41)
                                                                            —     Article 282 EC does not confer any competence on the
                                                                                  EC, represented by the Commission to bring an action
                    (Language of the case: English)                               before the court of a non-Member State;
                                                                            —     Article 280 EC does not grant the EC, represented by the
                                                                                  Commission, any competence to bring legal action for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         the protection of the Community’s financial interests.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        Article 280 only grants limited competence on the
European Communities on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          Community to ensure that Member States introduce
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of                           measures that are effective to protect the Community’s
America, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem,                           financial interest and to assist the Member States in this
United States of America R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International,                    task;
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of America and RJR
Acquisition Corp, Wilmington, United States of America,
represented by Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery and Ms Francesca                    —     even if one assumes that Article 280 EC grants such
Marchini Camia, Lawyers.                                                          competence on the EC, the contested act does not fulfil