CELEX: C2003/251/26
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-272/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European Communities

18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/13
      tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/              Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
      M.2903 have been met;                                              Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active, in                      2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
particular, in the area of telematic services for commercial                   ment contract be renewed;
vehicles. It is challenging the Commission's decision of
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG                 —     in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA                     Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the                     14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
EEA Agreement.                                                                 (a) of the CEOS;
The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of           —     in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG                        damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly                        extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for                    ing, subject to all necessary reservations, to
telematic services even in the light of the commitments.                       EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-            Pleas in law and main arguments
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.
                                                                         The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its          on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are                 2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
concerned.                                                               staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
                                                                         16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
                                                                         which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
                                                                         on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
                                                                         extended by a year.
                                                                         The applicant states that the request was rejected by the
Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores                         Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European                       account of the length of service as national expert on second-
                          Communities                                    ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
                                                                         rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
                        (Case T-272/03)                                  total in excess of 6 years.
                        (2003/C 251/26)
                                                                         In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
                                                                         gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities, in particular Article 8 thereof,
                                                                         infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
                                                                         of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
An action against the Commission of the European                         entitled to take into account the period during which she had
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María                    her total time at the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/14              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
The applicant further alleges: breach of the duty to give                contested Decision. The opening of the procedure was not
reasons for decisions, the duty to have regard for the welfare           properly based on public health considerations. Furthermore,
of officials and of the principle of sound administration;               the referral and the opening of the procedure covered the
manifest error of assessment; breach of the principle of                 entire content of the SPC. This goes beyond the permissible
legitimate expectations; and, finally, misuse of powers.                 scope of an Article 30 referral, and such a procedure does not
                                                                         allow for the adoption of a harmonised SPC. Moreover, the
                                                                         opening of the procedure lacked proper reasoning.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicants submit that the harmonisation of
                                                                         the SPCs in the contested Decision was illegal, since the
                                                                         Commission did not have the power to adopt the Decision.
                                                                         In the alternative, the applicants argue that even if the
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp &                         Commission could, in principle, have harmonised the SPCs
Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of                     for RENITEC, the Commission has failed to identify any public
                 the European Communities                                health reasons justifying the harmonisation of the SPCs.
                        (Case T-273/03)
                        (2003/C 251/27)                                  The applicants finally claim that the contested Decision is
                                                                         illegal because binding time-limits of the Directive were not
                  (Language of the case: English)                        observed and because the Commission and the Committee for
                                                                         Proprietary Medicinal Products failed to provide sufficient rea-
                                                                         soning.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 1 August 2003 by Merck
Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, (United Kingdom),                      (1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Haalem, (Netherlands),                             Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products
Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, (France),                   for human use (OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67).
MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, (Germany), Merck Sharp
& Dohme (Italia) SpA., Rome, (Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme,
LDA, Paço de Arcos, (Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de
Espana S.A., Madrid, (Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.
H., Vienna, (Austria), and VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, (Greece),
represented by Mr G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     annul the contested Decision;                                                                (Case T-275/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 251/28)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                                  submitted: German)
The applicants are Marketing Authorization Holders of the
medicinal product RENITEC and associated trade names.
RENITEC contains the active ingredient ‘enalapril’ and is used           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
in treatment of hypertension and heart failure.                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants challenge the Commission Decision C(2003)                 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich
1752 of 21 May 2003 concerning the placing on the market                 (Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer. ECI Telecom
of medicinal products for human use containing the substance             Ltd., Petach Tikva (Israel) was also a party to the proceedings
‘enalapril’ by which the Commission harmonised the Summary               before the Board of Appeal.
of Product Characteristics (‘SPC’) for RENITEC and associated
trade names. The contested Decision was adopted as a result of
a referral procedure under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Parliament and the Council (1).
                                                                         —     annul Decision No 2055/2001 of the Opposition
The applicants argue that the initiation of the Article 30                     Division of the defendant of 27 August 2001 in opposi-
procedure was illegal and that that entails the illegality of the              tion proceedings B 288680;