CELEX: C1999/086/46
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal Health against the Council of the European Union (Case T-13/99)

27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/25
The applicants further claim that the Commission's                  (a) to rule upon the notification by Germany of an
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed                        amendment to the plan approved by Commission
pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and                     Decision 94/1070/ECSC; and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (1) are unlawful pursuant
to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, since the guidelines
constitute a genuine regulation, which the Commission               (b) to authorise Germany to grant aid to its coal industry
was not competent to issue.                                              1998.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
Finally, the applicants complain of irregularities in the           amendment to the plan on the following grounds:
setting of the fine. For example, their cooperation was not
sufficiently taken into account, and the principles that a
fine should not exceed 10 % of turnover or threaten to              Ð Infringement of an essential procedural
lead to insolvency were ignored.                                         requirement / lack of reasoning:
(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                         the contested decision makes no mention of the
                                                                         purported amendments to the plan in the operative
                                                                         part of the ruling. Accordingly, there has been no
                                                                         ruling under Article 8(4) of the Code (2) as to the
                                                                         amendments to the plant notified by Germany.
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by RJB Mining PLC                 Ð Manifest failure to observe the provisions
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    o f t h e E C S C Tr e a t y a n d / o r a n y r u l e o f
                                                                         law relating to its application and misuse
                        (Case T-12/99)                                   of powers:
                        (1999/C 86/45)
                                                                         the purported ruling proceeds on the entirely false
                                                                         basis that the three main recipients of aid continued to
                (Language of the case: English)                          exist separately throughout 1998 and fails to take into
                                                                         account of the merger of those recipients in August
                                                                         1998 or the massive state aid inherent in and
An action against the Commission of the European                         conditional on the merger. Further, the purported
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        ruling, in so far as it relates to operating aid, makes
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January                       no assessment under Article 3(2) and Article 8 of the
1999 by RJB Mining PLC, represented by Mark Philip                       Code as to whether the amended plan requires the
Brealey, of Brick Court Chambers, and Jonathan Alex                      relevant undertakings to be capable of becoming
Lawrence, Solicitor of Freshfields, with an address for                  viable within the foreseeable future.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
                                                                    authorisation of aid for 1998 on similar grounds to those
                                                                    raised in Case T-110/98.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    (1) Case T-110/98 (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
                                                                    (2) Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
1. annul the Commission Decision of 2 December 1998
     relating to aid to the German coal industry for 1998;
     and
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of action,
     including those of the applicant.                              Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal
                                                                         Health against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                            (Case T-13/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                            (1999/C 86/46)
The applicant, which has already challenged the decision                            (Language of the case: English)
relating to aid paid to the German coal industry for
1997 (1), seeks in the present application the annulment of
the decision relating to aid for 1998 (the contested                An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision) which purports:                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
Communities on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal                      Ð the regulation infringes the requirements of the
Health, represented by Elisabethann Wright, Ian S.                       precautionary principle as laid down in the
Forrester, Mark D. Powell, Solicitor, and Werner van                     Commission's own Guidelines, in that, whereas that
Lembergen acting on the instructions of Stephan J.                       document calls for a prudent and objectiv risk
Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   assessment, the circumstances in which the contested
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                             regulation was adopted were the result of a
Grand-rue.                                                               misrepresentation of scientific evidence, with no
                                                                         neutral assessment of the risk involved;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð the regulation fails to observe the requirement of
                                                                         proportionality, in that it will disrupt livestock and
                                                                         poultry business in several Member States, and will
1. annul Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in its entirety or as                also destroy the applicant's virginiamycin business; the
    regards virginiamycin;                                               public interest could have been assured by less drastic
                                                                         measures;
2. take such other or further measures as justice may
    require;                                                         Ð the regulation frustrates the legitimate expectations of
                                                                         all those who believed that the surveys established by
                                                                         EC legislation would actually be conducted and would
                                                                         be treated seriously by the institutions, which were to
3. award the applicant the costs of the present action.                  be guided by them;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ð the statement of the reasons on which the regulation is
                                                                         based is inadequate and defective;
The present application seeks the annulment of Council
                                                                     Ð the regulation is inconsistent with the First Protocol of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998,
                                                                         the European Convention on Human Rights and
amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of
                                                                         Fundamental Freedoms and with the fundamental
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                                                                         right to property recognised by Community law.
additives in feedingstuffs (1), by which virginiamycin has
been removed from the list of feedingstuffs approved for
use in the EC. Virginiamycin is an antibiotic of the                 (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 4.
streptogremin family of antibiotics, marketed under the
trade name Stafac'. Minute quantities of virginiamycin
are added to feedingstuffs additives developed for pigs,
poultry and cattle.
The contested regulation bans virginiamycin on the                   Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohr-
supposition that its use in animal husbandry may pose a              systeme against the Commission of the European
potential risk of human resistance to synercid, another                                      Communities
antibiotic of the streptogramin family, which has not been
yet authorised in the European Union. According to the                                      (Case T-15/99)
applicant, the risk is entirely theoretical.                                                (1999/C 86/47)
In support of its application, the applicant submits that:                          (Language of the case: German)
Ð procedural errors vitiated the Commission's exercise of            An action against the Commission of the European
    its discretion, errors consisting primarily in failure to        Communities was brought before the Court of First
    take proper steps to inform itself on complex scientific         Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
    matters and failure to obtain full information on all            1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, whose registered
    aspects of the case;                                             office is in Wunstorf (Germany), represented by Thomas
                                                                     Jestaedt, Hanns-Christian Salger and Martin Sura, of the
                                                                     firm of Boesebeck Droste, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð the regulation is vitiated by manifest errors of                   Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Matthias Hardt,
    assessment;                                                      Luxembourg.