CELEX: C2001/061/40
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-383/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd., against the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 61/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  (b) the Council wilfully disregarded the findings of the
                                                                                   CVMP.
—     annul the Council Decision of 28 September 2000
      amounting to a refusal to adopt a Maximum Residue                 2.   Breach of principle of proportionality in light of the
      Limit under Regulation No 2377/90, with regard to                      special circumstances of the case, namely:
      recombinant bovine somatotrophin;
                                                                             (a)   that there is no scientific evidence of a risk to human
                                                                                   health;
—     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
      Council.                                                               (b) that milk or milk products are imported from third
                                                                                   countries where BST is administered to cows; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (c)   any public-health objective has already been more
                                                                                   than adequately assured through the adoption of a
                                                                                   ban on the marketing of BST.
The applicant is a life sciences company, in the business of
developing products to meet the growing global need for                 3.   Wrongful or disproportionate application of the pre-
food. It has developed a veterinary medicinal product called                 cautionary principle.
sometribove. This product is classified as a recombinant bovine
somatotrophin (‘BST’) and when administered to dairy cows
has the effect of increasing their milk production. Before              (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
veterinary products, such as sometribove, can be put on the
Community market, a maximum residue limit (‘MRL’) must be
established, in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1).
                                                                        Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd.,
On 14 January 1997, the Commission decided to reject the                against the Council of the European Union, the European
request for the inclusion of sometribove (bovine somatropine)           Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, in spite                                         munities
of the fact that the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Products (‘CVMP’) had come to the conclusion that it was not
necessary for the protection of public health to establish MRL                                   (Case T-383/00)
for BST and had recommended the inclusion of this product
in the list of substances not subject to MRL in Annex II. This                                    (2001/C 61/40)
decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance.
As the result of the judgment, the Commission decided to send                             (Language of the case: English)
the file back to the CVMP for a new opinion on BST. In July
1999, the CVMP re-evaluated BST taking into account all                 An action against the Council of the European Union, the
the latest available scientific information and confirmed its           European Parliament and the Commission of the European
previous opinion that residues of BST are safe and that BST             Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
should therefore be included in Annex II. On 13 July 2000,              of the European Communities on 22 December 2000 by
the Commission submitted to the Council its final proposition           Beamglow Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of
for inclusion of BST in Annex II. On 28 September 2000, the             the United Kingdom, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
Council decided not to adopt the Commission’s proposal. It is           Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).
this decision that is challenged by the applicant in the present
case.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant contends that the contested decision should be            —    order the European Community, as represented here
annulled for the following reasons:                                          by the Council of the European Union, the European
                                                                             Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                             munities, as jointly and severally liable, to repair the
1.    Infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 2377/90.                   damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
      The applicant maintains that:                                          unlawful behaviour of the European Community and to
                                                                             set the amount of compensation at GBP 2 042 000 for
      (a)   the Council could not reject the Commission’s                    the period up to December 2000 plus GBP 79 000 per
            proposal in the absence of any new information or                month from that date to the date of judgment or any
            any reassessment of existing information on the                  other amount reflecting the actual damage suffered by
            bases of which the opinion of the CVMP might be                  the applicant as established by it in the course of the
            called into question;                                            proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
—     order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
      on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;                —     rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
                                                                               reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
—     order the European Community, as represented here                        respect of his pension rights;
      by the Council of the European Union, the European
      Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
      munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.                    —     rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
                                                                               1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
                                                                               the European Investment Bank;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The              Pleas in law and main arguments
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
                                                                         submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures       should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute                   defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European                 EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to              settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United               satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy                extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this         Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %                The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
ad valorem duties.                                                       that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
                                                                         was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
                                                                         necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in                paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious                 reimbursement of his pension rights.
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the           The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international            to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
obligations.                                                             in April 1993.
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
            against the European Investment Bank                         Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
                                                                                  Gonçalves against the European Parliament
                        (Case T-385/00)
                                                                                                 (Case T-386/00)
                         (2001/C 61/41)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 61/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident in                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the                   28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.                       Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.