CELEX: C2000/285/24
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-179/00: Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

C 285/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
(b) infringement, resulting from misapplication of the law,           According to the Commission, it is apparent from the file
      of, respectively, Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)        received by it from the Netherlands authorities that there can
      No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or                   be no question of any manipulation on the part of Cargill. Be
      remission of import or export duties, as last amended by        that as it may, Cargill did not act with all due care in the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89, Article 239 of Council             present case.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
      lishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs
                                                                      However, according to Cargill, there can be no question of its
      Code’) and Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regu-
                                                                      having failed to exercise due care, since its authorisation to
      lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
                                                                      engage in inward processing presupposed at the same time the
      provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      possible application of the system of equivalent compensation.
      (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
      Code (‘the implementing regulation’);
                                                                      Moreover, Cargill previously made repeated approaches to the
                                                                      competent Netherlands authorities with a view to obtaining
(c)   infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as laid
                                                                      clarification regarding the question whether or not it had
      down in Article 253 EC;
                                                                      correctly applied the relevant rules concerning inward pro-
                                                                      cessing and equivalent compensation. Cargill cannot be blamed
(d) breach of the principle of proportionality.                       for the fact that the national authorities committed an error;
                                                                      and, moreover, special circumstances exist within the meaning
                                                                      of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 and Article 239 of
Cargill was originally an undertaking engaged in the processing       the Customs Code.
of maize. The end product was glucose. As a result of
low wheat prices and improved processing techniques, the
processing of wheat into glucose subsequently became profit-
able. Following the final stage of the production process, the
same equipment is used without distinction for the two raw
materials.
Cargill imported maize under the inward processing arrange-           Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie
ments, paying no import duties in respect of the imported             Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the
quantities. On the other hand, it was obliged to export the                               European Communities
compensating product without any refund within 6 months
after importation.                                                                             (Case T-179/00)
The competent Netherlands authority demanded from the                                          (2000/C 285/24)
applicant payment of a customs debt, stating that, to the extent
that glucose was manufactured from a mixed commodity flow
consisting of maize and wheat, the use of wheat therein                                  (Language of the case: English)
was impermissible under the rules governing the system
of equivalent compensation (Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2228/91, Article 569 of the implementing regulation and            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 27(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for                European Communities on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Indus-
the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural       trie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, represented by Denis Wael-
products).                                                            broeck and Dirk Brinckman of Liedekerke Simeon Wessing
                                                                      Houthoff, Brussels.
In its decision, the Commission states that the present case
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
concerns a special situation within the meaning of Article 13
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 239 of the
Customs Code respectively. The reasons advanced by it for             —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
that assertion are that Cargill has satisfied all the rules                 request by the applicant to use its logo in the blue box of
laid down under the abovementioned inward processing                        the packaging of the pharmaceutical product OPTRUMA;
arrangements. Moreover, the production process in question
constitutes a normal procedure in the European starch industry        —     subsidiarily declare also the European Commission Guide-
for undertakings which use both maize and wheat as raw                      line on Packaging Information of medical products for
materials for the production of glucose.                                    human use authorised by the Community illegal under
                                                                            Article 241 EC in so far as it could be read as containing
                                                                            a prohibition on the use of the logo by the local
The Commission observes, however, that such a special                       representative or a licensee;
situation may nevertheless give rise to remission of import
duties only if no manipulation or manifest negligence can be          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the present
imputed to the person concerned.                                            proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against
                                                                                            the European Parliament
The applicant is a licensee and local representative for a
pharmaceutical product marketed under the name OPTRUMA.                                          (Case T-182/00)
This product was registered under the centralised Community
authorisation procedure, as laid down by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2309/93 (1).                                                                           (2000/C 285/25)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision                               (Language of the case: Italian)
refusing the use of its company logo in the so-called ‘blue box’
on the outer packaging of the product.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
This ‘blue box’ is a boxed area provided to accommodate the
                                                                        on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella, represented by Piero
specific information Member States may require to appear on             A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
the package as laid down by Article 5 (2) of Directive
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
92/27/EEC (2).
                                                                        Albert 1er.
The annulment is sought on the following grounds:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     lack of any legal basis in the applicable Community
                                                                        —     declare the present action admissible;
      regulations to adopt the contested decision;
                                                                        —     annul Decision No 303663 of the College of Quaestors
—     illegal interference with the applicant’s right of property
                                                                              of 17 April 2000;
      to the extent that the logo constitutes a property right
      protected under the Treaty;
                                                                        —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
—     frustration of the legitimate expectation which the Com-          Pleas in law and main arguments
      mission caused the applicant to entertain;
                                                                        The present action seeks annulment of Decision No 303663
—     lack of an appropriate statement of reasons;                      of the College of Quaestors of the European Parliament of
                                                                        17 April 2000 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality and of           pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Rules governing the payment
      the applicant’s right to freely exercise its economic             of expenses and allowances to Members, for his non-attend-
      activities;                                                       ance at the January 2000 session of the Parliament to be
                                                                        excused. The reason given for that request was that the
—     failure to comply with the time-limit of 90 days pre-             applicant had to attend the hearing in criminal proceedings
      scribed by Article 10 (3) of Directive 92/27/EEC.                 brought against him.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Guidelines on the           In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
packaging information, which the Commission issued to
clarify the labelling requirements have no legal force. However,        —     incorrect interpretation of the above-mentioned
should these Guidelines nevertheless be considered binding, it                Article 28(2), inasmuch as the rationale for that provision
invokes a plea of illegality pursuant to Article 241 EC as the                is to prevent Members from being penalised where they
Commission had no competence to adopt a rule infringing                       are unable to attend sessions of the Parliament for reasons
fundamental property rights.                                                  beyond their control. More particularly, the applicant
                                                                              maintains that the term ‘serious family circumstances’ is
                                                                              capable of covering all situations in which the person
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying                concerned cannot reasonably be expected to resume his
    down Community procedures for the authorisation and super-                normal activities in the usual way;
    vision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and
    establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
    Products, OJ 1993 L 214 , p. 1.                                     —     infringement of his right to a fair hearing, which should
(2) Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling             be understood as meaning that a person involved in
    of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. OJ           proceedings is entitled to participate personally in those
    1992 L 113, p. 8.                                                         proceedings.