CELEX: C2003/055/82
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-381/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de roquefort against Commission of the European Communities

8.3.2003                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/31
basis for its assessment. The main competitor would obtain a                 European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Confédé-
monopoly position if the applicant were to disappear. In                     ration générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des
examining the applicant’s prospects of profitability, the Com-               industriels de roquefort, established in Millau (France), rep-
mission overlooked the commitment of a private investor, the                 resented by Michel-Jean Jacquot and Olivier Prost, lawyers.
applicant’s latest restructuring plan, essential testimony in
economic reports, and the positive development of the appli-
cant.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further argues that the Commission wrongly
                                                                             —     annul Commission Regulation No 1829/2002 of
made a preliminary decision in an earlier proceeding about the
adjustment of the purchase price (1), and thereby artificially                     14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
                                                                                   (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ ( 1);
divided its examination, which related to the restructuring as a
whole. The opening of a further formal examination procedure,
relating only to the loan from TAB and the changing of the                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
security, was out of time. The principle of sound administration
required the Commission to assess the whole restructuring
plan as a unity and in its proper context.
The applicant argues that the Commission infringed its defence               Pleas in law and main arguments
rights. Because of the splitting of the procedure, the applicant
was able to adopt a position on only part of the measures, and
the Commission wrongly denied the applicant’s applications
for inspection of the files and a proper legal hearing. The                  The applicant is an inter-branch association which claims to
                                                                             group together and represent the interests of all producers of
Commission infringed the principle of impartiality by not
                                                                             Feta made from ewe’s milk.
giving the applicant and the German Government the oppor-
tunity to comment on the statement of a competitor, which
the Commission had obtained by putting questions to that
competitor.                                                                  The contested regulation reserves the name ‘Feta’ — a protected
                                                                             designation of origin — for Greek producers. The Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities had already annulled, in
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has not                   1996, a Commission regulation on the same subject ( 2).
proved that repayment of the alleged aid in this case would be
appropriate to restore the previous position. Repayment was a
sanction going beyond the limited powers of the Commission.
                                                                             In support of its action for annulment, the applicant argues
                                                                             that no justification or reasons are stated for the choice of the
( 1) Commission Decision K(2001) 1549 of 12.6.2001 on State aid              ‘simplified’ procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation
     by Germany in favour of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
                                                                             No 2081/92 (3). In order to have recourse to that procedure, it
     against which the applicant brought an action before the Court of
     First Instance (Case T-198/01, OJ 2001 C 303, p. 25).
                                                                             is necessary, not only for an application by the national
                                                                             authorities for a legally protected name in the applicant State
                                                                             to exist before the entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92,
                                                                             but also for that name to be neither legally protected in
                                                                             countries other than the applicant Member State nor in use in
                                                                             those countries. The term ‘Feta’ was not legally protected in
                                                                             Greece — the applicant State — in the sense intended by the
                                                                             legislation at the time of the entry into force of Regulation
Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Confédération                          No 2081/92. By contrast, not only was that same term legally
générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industri-                  protected in Denmark before the entry into force of Regulation
els de roquefort against Commission of the European                          No 2081/92, but also its use was widespread in France and
                             Communities                                     throughout the world.
                            (Case T-381/02)
                                                                             The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations in the analysis of whether the term ‘Feta’ is
                            (2003/C 55/82)
                                                                             generic and that it infringed Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                             No 2081/92 by the fact that it once again did not take
                      (Language of the case: French)                         sufficient account of certain factors: in particular, the existing
                                                                             situation in the Member State in which the name originates,
                                                                             the existing situation in other Member States, and the relevant
                                                                             national and Community laws. In addition, the applicant is of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    the opinion that the Commission infringed Article 2(3) of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Regulation No 2081/92.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/32                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
proportionality and breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations based on the existence of Community
financing for the production and marketing of ‘Feta’.                        The applicant is an official at the Commission in Brussels. In
                                                                             June 2000, on taking up his appointment, he settled in
                                                                             Brussels. His spouse subsequently settled in Brussels with him
( 1) OJ L 277, p. 10.                                                        and organised the removal of the family, which took place on
( 2) Judgment in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96                11 April 2001, whilst continuing to be present at her
     Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                      former home in Madrid, where their youngest daughter was
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the              completing her secondary education. Consequently, his spouse
     protection of geographical indications and designations of origin       and daughter did not join him until July 2001, which they
     for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208, p. 1).              declared to the Privileges and Immunities service.
                                                                             By the contested decision, the Commission refused to pay the
                                                                             applicant the second half of the installation allowance.
                                                                             In support of his action, the applicant pleads an error of law
                                                                             and a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant,
Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando                               the administration attached decisive importance to the declar-
Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European                          ations made by his spouse and daughter to the Privileges and
                            Communities                                      Immunities service. The applicant states that the concept of
                                                                             installation is a factual concept and that the text of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations does not prescribe any particular mode of proof.
                           (Case T-384/02)
                                                                             The applicant also pleads an error of law and an omission of
                           (2003/C 55/83)                                    essential facts, since the administration considered the period
                                                                             laid down by Articles 5(4) and 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                             Regulations to be a mandatory time-limit and did not consider
                      (Language of the case: French)                         the possibility of waiving it by reason of the complainant’s
                                                                             establishment as an official on taking up his appointment and
                                                                             the fact that his daughter was unable to join her parents in
                                                                             Brussels before the end of the school year.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-
Albert Lucas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G.
                                                                             against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
—      annul the decisions of the head of the Administration of                            (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
       Individual Rights unit of the Adminstration Directorate-
       General of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002                                               (Case T-386/02)
       refusing the applicant the second half of the installation
       allowance;
                                                                                                       (2003/C 55/84)
—      annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 Sep-
       tember 2002 rejecting the complaint through official                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
       channels of 9 May 2002 against the abovementioned
       decisions;
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant the second
                                                                             An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       half of his installation allowance together with default              Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
       interest at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from
                                                                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
       11 April 2001 and until payment is made in full;
                                                                             16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G., whose registered
                                                                             office is in Madrid, represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez.