CELEX: C1999/048/56
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 December 1998 in Case T-93/98: Ioannis Rentzos v. European Parliament (Staff report - Rejection of a request for revision of a staff report - Action for annulment - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

C 48/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                    of 16 December 1998                                of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                       sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ L 213,
in   Case    T-93/98:     Ioannis Rentzos      v.   European           30.7.1998);
                         Parliament (1)
(Staff report Ð Rejection of a request for revision of a
staff report Ð Action for annulment Ð Time-limits for              Ð in the alternative, annul Article 3; and
          bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                        (1999/C 48/56)
                                                                   Ð order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-93/98: Ioannis Rentzos, an official of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
European       Parliament,     residing   at     Niederanven
(Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     The applicant has been manufacturing and marketing
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de                  under licence a range of high-quality shoes under the
Longwy, v. European Parliament (Agent: Yannis Pantalis)            Camel Boots trade mark since 1978. Camel Boots are
Ð application for annulment of the applicant's staff               extremely successful products and can be found all over
report for the period 1995-1997, of the defendant's                the world.
decision rejecting the request for revision of that report
and, in so far as might be necessary, of the defendant's
decision rejecting the applicant's complaint Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D.              Under Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 98/43/EC, the
Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               applicant will no longer be able to advertise its Camel
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 December           Boots shoes, unless the Member States elect to exempt
1998, the operative part of which is as follows:                   such advertising from the general advertising and
                                                                   sponsorship ban enacted by the Directive. The applicant
                                                                   seeks the annulment of Directive 98/43/EC or, failing that,
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   of Article 3 thereof.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                   The applicant's first plea is that Directive 98/43/EC lacks
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.                                           a legal basis and is ultra vires. Both the content and the
                                                                   legislative history of the Directive show that it is
                                                                   primarily, if not exclusively, a public health measure. By
                                                                   virtue of Article 129(4) of the EC Treaty, the Community
                                                                   may not adopt harmonising measures with respect to
                                                                   public health.
Action brought on 19 October 1998 by Salamander AG
against the European Parliament and the Council of the
                       European Union                              Article 100a cannot provide a legal basis for the Directive,
                       (Case T-172/98)                             as any effect that the Directive may have on the internal
                                                                   market will only be marginal. In fact, the Directive's
                        (1999/C 48/57)                             impact on the internal market will be negative. The same
                                                                   conclusion applies with respect to Articles 57(2) and 66 of
               (Language of the case: English)                     the EC Treaty, which are also mentioned as the legal basis
                                                                   for the Directive.
An action against the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on             The applicant's second plea is that Directive 98/43/EC
19 October 1998 by Salamander AG, represented by                   creates unjustifiable obstacles to the free movement of
Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis, with an address           goods and the freedom to provide services and therefore
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and            infringes Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty.
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's third plea is that the Directive provides
                                                                   insufficient reasoning for its harsh treatment of good-faith
                                                                   brand diversification advertising, and does not explain
Ð annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament              whether and how the Community legislature has taken
    and the Council of 6 July 1998, on the approximation           into account the subsidiarity principle.