CELEX: C2003/239/44
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-267/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities

4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 239/23
the recitals to the contested decision is inadequate. The                  Pleas in law and main arguments
publication of the standards in the Official Journal is likewise
defective as no reference is made to the fact that the standards,
for the most part, and their annexes (with the exception of
Annex ZA) are not binding and that thermal installation                    In the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of
products only need to comply with Annex ZA in order to bear                artificial fertiliser to North Korea, the applicant was awarded
the EC mark. As regards the substance, the applicants are of               the contract by the Commission. Since the artificial fertiliser
the opinion that the standards in question are incomplete,                 supplied by the applicant was late in reaching its destination,
unclear, imprecise and contradictory and that the system of                the Commission withheld from the applicant a sum of
standards is incoherent. Moreover, the use of the EC mark is               EUR 346 221,20 and refused, finally by letter of 23 May 2003,
misleading since it does not prove that the product complies               to pay the sum concerned to the applicant.
with all European standards but rather only with Annex ZA to
those standards. The contested decision thus fails to meet the
requirements of Directive 89/106, the principle of pro-                    The applicant submits that the delay in delivering the fertiliser
portionality (third paragraph of Article 5 EC) and the require-            can be attributed to restrictions on the export of fertiliser from
ments of consumer protection (Article 95(3) EC).                           China, where it intended to procure the fertiliser for export.
                                                                           As those restrictions were wholly unforeseeable, they may be
                                                                           regarded as a case of force majeure and, consequently, in
( 1) OJ C 358 of 15 December 2001, p. 9.                                   accordance with Article 22(4) of Regulation No 2519/97 (1),
( 2) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the               no sum may be retained. The applicant also submits that no
     approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions      loss was suffered as a result of the late delivery and that
     of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ L 40       retention of the amount is therefore disproportionate to the
     of 11 February 1989, p. 12) as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC         failure to observe the delivery period and is in breach of the
     (OJ L 220 of 30 August 1993, p. 1).
                                                                           Community-law principle of proportionality. The retention
                                                                           also infringes provisions of the Belgian Civil Code, since the
                                                                           Commission did not previously expressly call on the applicant
                                                                           to fulfil that contractual obligation.
                                                                           (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997
                                                                                laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be
                                                                                supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Com-
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel                              munity food aid (OJ L 346 of 17.12.1997, p. 23).
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                         (Case T-265/03)
                         (2003/C 239/43)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato
                                                                           (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                      Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                            (Case T-267/03)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel
GmbH, Hamburg (Germany), represented by Dr W.P. Wasch-                                               (2003/C 239/44)
mann, lawyer.
                                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 23 May 2003 concerning retention of a                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       sum of EUR 346 221,20;
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato,
—      order the Commission of the European Communities to                 residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
       pay the costs.                                                      Laure Levi, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             and subversion of the effectiveness of the agreement between
                                                                        the parties in the first case. Third, she alleges that the
                                                                        Commission breached the principle of good management
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition          practice and sound administration and the duty to have regard
      COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 rejecting the applicant’s            for the welfare of officials. Finally, as her fourth plea in favour
      request of 26 June 2002 that the selection board recon-           of annulment, she relies on misuse of powers and alleged
      sider its decision of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant        breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 27
      from the oral test in the competition pursuant to the             of the Staff Regulations and of the right to career advancement.
      agreement reached between the Commission and the
      applicant at the informal meeting held before the Fourth
      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            (1 ) Case T-34/01, notice published in OJ C 108, 7.4.2001, p. 28.
      Communities on 20 March 2002 in connection with the
      action brought against the decision of 8 March 2000
      (Case T-34/01);
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
      appointing authority of 13 June 2003, served on 20 June
      2003, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 and admit the applicant to
      the oral test in competition COM/PB/99;                                                     (Case T-270/03)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 239/45)
—     award damages of EUR 8 150,10;
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl,
                                                                        represented by L. Lavitola and C. Reggio d’Aci.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant had brought an action before the Court of                 —      annul that part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/
First Instance against the decision of the selection board in                  97 of 12 June 1997 which is prejudicial to the applicant’s
competition COM/PB/99 not to admit her to the oral test in                     interests, together with annexed documents and, specifi-
that competition (1). At the hearing in that case the parties                  cally, the rules governing the PGI ‘Prosciutto di Norcia’,
agreed on a settlement under which the applicant would be                      with reference to the unlawful provision (in Article 3)
sent corrected copies of her own answers and of the model                      that the pigs must come from Italian farms; make all
answers drawn up by selection board in the competition and                     consequential orders, and order the Commission to pay
the applicant would pass on any comments to that selection                     the costs.
board. Following that agreement, the applicant discontinued
her first action. Having examined the copies sent to her the
applicant asked the selection board to reconsider its previous
decision and admit her to the oral test. The present case arises
over the refusal of that request.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant company operates in the food distribution
                                                                        sector. Through the company’s own supplier it purchased in
In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the rules       the European market from stock farms specialising in white
governing the work of a selection board, misinterpretation and          meat pork-meat intended for preparation and aging by com-
breach of the principle of non-discrimination. She also puts            panies authorised for that purpose with reference to the
forward a plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons       protected geographical indication (PGI) Prociutto di Norcia.