CELEX: C1996/269/58
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/96)

14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/25
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         clinical trials allowed by the competent authorities after
                                                                     notification or authorization in accordance with the
                                                                     legislation in force, and not resulting in the formation of
— declare that, in breach of its obligations, the
                                                                     residues constituting a risk to human health . In any event,
     Commission failed to follow the procedure to include            the Commission was not entitled to invoke the moratorium
     somatosalm produced by the applicant on the list of             on BST to oppose the classification of the product in
     substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                     question in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
     Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                     Finally, the applicant argues that the omission in question
— order the Commission to pay the applicant provisional              infringes the principle of sound administration, in that it
     damages of Bfr 512 million, or, at the very least,              goes against the objectives which the Community has set
     provisional damages of Bfr 353 million,                         itself in encouraging research and development in the
                                                                     biotechnology sector , in which Europe is significantly
                                                                     behind .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a Belgian biotechnology company . The
development and use of smoltine, a derivate of a protein ,           Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung
somatosalm , used naturally by salmon to control their               Stahl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
osmoregulation capacity, is extremely important for the
future of the applicant, which wishes to extend its activities                                 ( Case T- 106/96 )
in the area of pharmaceutical products for the aquaculture                                       ( 96/C 269/58 )
sector .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: German)
The applicant accuses the Commission of preventing the
adoption of an implementing regulation to include
somatosalm in Annex I , II or III to Regulation ( EEC )              An action against the Commission of the European
No 2377/90 , laying down a Community procedure for the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary                Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 1996 by
medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, which             Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl , Diisseldorf, represented by
would have allowed the product in question to be marketed .          Joachim Sedemund , Rechtsanwalt, Berlin , with an address
It argues that, under Article 8 ( 3 ) of that Regulation , the       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May ,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
Commission was obliged , in the absence of an opinion from
the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP),
to submit a proposition to the Council without delay as to           The applicant claims that the Court should:
the measures to be taken . It appears that the Commission
submitted a draft implementing regulation to the CVMP,               — annul the defendant's decision ( 96/315/ECSC ) of
including somatosalm in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC )                    7 February 1 996 concerning aid to be granted by Ireland
No 2377/90 . The Committee did not, however, issue an                     to the steel company Irish Steel,
opinion , for lack of a qualified majority , four Member States
having been opposed and six others having abstained on               — in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the
the ground that the Council 's moratorium on bovine                       defendant in so far as it allows Irish Steel to increase its
somatotrophine ( BST) would be ' indirectly ' called into                 production level above the total production level in the
 question if another somatotrophine were to appear on the                 1994/95 financial year,
market .
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicant makes the legal argument that abstention by
 the Commission from submitting a proposal for measures to            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 be taken is generally accepted as constituting a culpable
 failure to act, and that the absence of a Commission
 proposal prevents the adoption of an implementing                    The applicant complains that the contested decision
 regulation which could make it possible to market smoltine           infringes Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty and the fifth ' steel
 in the Community .                                                   aids code', in a manner which is not justified by Article 95 of
                                                                      the ECSC Treaty. The Commission is permitting individual
                                                                      Member States to subsidize unprofitable State-owned steel
 It maintains that the effects of that failure to act are             companies on a repeated basis and on so massive a scale that
 particularly damaging, since, as from 1 January 1997 , the           the subsidy payments exceed the equity capital of the
 administration to animals used in food production                    undertaking concerned . This is contrary to the
 of veterinary medicinal products which contain                       Community 's aids policy in respect of privately operated
 pharmacologically active substances and do not appear in             steel undertakings, the subsidizing of which is subject to
 Annex I, II or III will be prohibited , save in the case of          rigorous supervision . The subsidizing of individual
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/26           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
unprofitable steelworks is prohibited . According to the             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by Pantochim SA against
Treaty ( Article 56 ( 2 )) and the code, approval could have                the Commission of the European Communities
been given only in respect of aid relating to closures .                                     ( Case T-107/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 269/59 )
The applicant advances, in particular, the following
pleas :
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
— breach of the principle that the administration must act
    in accordance with the law, since the contested decision
    is not in conformity with the ECSC Treaty and the fifth          An action against the Commission of the European
    steel aids code, and since a derogation from the aids code       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    could only have been provided for by a general rule in the       Instance of the European Communities on 12 July 1996 by
    abstract,                                                        Pantochim SA, whose registered office is in Feluy ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar,
— breach of the principle of equality, and in particular of          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    the principle that the administration is bound by its own        of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
    acts ,
— the absence of any compelling need for approval of aid in          The applicant claims that the Court should :
    order to attain the objectives of the Treaty, since the aid
    payments did not serve to achieve any of the objectives of       — declare that the Commission has infringed the EC Treaty
    Articles 2 and 3 but were designed to offset losses and               by failing to decide, pursuant to the first subparagraph
    liabilities from previous years ,                                     of Article 93 ( 2 ) thereof, that France must alter its
                                                                          procedures governing the grant of aid for biofuel so that
— breach of the inherent scheme of Article 3 of the ECSC                  they comply with the rules in the EC Treaty,
    Treaty and infringement of Article 56 ( 2 ) of that
    Treaty,
                                                                     — find the Community liable for the harm resulting from
                                                                          the    Commission 's    failure to   act  and   order     the
— unlawful legalization of unnotified aids dating from
    1993 ,
                                                                          Commission to make good that harm, provisionally
                                                                          assessed at FF 50 508 729 ,
— breach of the principle of the restrictive interpretation of
    exemption provisions , in particular Article 95 of the           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    ECSC Treaty,
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    expectations, since the reliance placed by privately
    operated steel undertakings on meticulous adherence to           The applicant, a company established under Belgian law and
    the aids code as a guideline for action by the Commission        subsidiary of Societa Italiana Serie Acetica Sintetica SpA
    has been rendered worthless ,                                    (' Sisas'), has a factory in Feluy where it produces a methyl
                                                                     ester from vegetable oils, called Sisoil E. It challenges the
— breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, since      alleged failure of the Commission to take action under the
    the competitors of Irish Steel were not notified in              procedure laid down by Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
    advance and invited to comment,                                  against the discriminatory grant by the French authorities of
                                                                     tax relief for biodiesel other than ethyl alcohol originating in
— infringement of the procedural rules governing the                 another Member State .
    adoption of the contested decision, in particular
    Article 13 of the ECSC Treaty, concerning the                    The applicant points out in that regard that Sisas contacted
    decision-making procedure of the Commission ,                    both the main French oil companies with a view to entering
    Articles 1 and 27 of the Commission 's rules of procedure        into contracts for the direct supply of Sisoil E and three
    of 9 January 1963 concerning the principle of                    French vegetable oil producers with a view to entering into
    collegiality and the delegation of powers , and Articles 1 1     contracts for ester processing on their behalf at the Feluy
    and 12 of the rules of procedure concerning written              factory . The problem has arisen because the French
    procedure and the procedure for holding meetings,                authorities' approval of the factory in Feluy as a ' pilot unit'
                                                                     is required before such contracts can be entered into .
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of                 Despite repeated efforts, Sisas has never obtained French
    reasons pursuant to Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty,               Government approval for the applicant to supply in France
                                                                     biodiesel benefiting from the tax relief.
— breach of the principle of proportionality , as a result of
    the distortion of competition arising from the grant of
    approval of a massive expansion of production .                  Since the procedure initiated by the Commission under
                                                                     Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty was not pursued , the
                                                                     applicant has brought this action for declaration of failure
                                                                     to act. In that regard, the applicant considers that the legal