CELEX: C1998/234/61
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di Firenze, Società Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il Bottaio against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/98)

25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/31
         procedure, in so far as that decision does not            The applicant claims that the Court should:
         mention the applicant's name.
                                                                   Ð Annul        and/or    declare    unlawful     Commission
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation of up to BFR                 Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 (OJ
    833 000;                                                           1998 L 87, p. 8) supplementing the Annex to
                                                                       Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of
                                                                       geographical indications and designations of origin
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    provides for Italy, in respect of olive oil Ð in the
                                                                       context of the products intended for human
The applicant contests her omission from the list of                   consumption listed in Annex II to the Treaty under
officials most deserving of promotion in the 1997                      Oils and fats' Ð use of the Protected Geographical
promotions procedure and the refusal by the appointing                 Indication (PGI) Toscano' (Tuscan), subject to the
authority to promote her to grade B 2 in the course of                 rules laid down by the Italian State;
that procedure.
                                                                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
support of her claims:                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 90(2) and the first paragraph            The applicants comprise two regional associations whose
    of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, together with the       duty, according to their statutes, is to safeguard the
    decision     of   the    Commission      published     in      interests of agricultural producers in their respective
    Administrative Notices No 498 of 7 April 1986,                 provinces; a consortium which is an umbrella organisation
    inasmuch as the contested decision was signed by the           for various olive growers in the Province of Florence; and
    Member of the Commission responsible for personnel             other proprietors of agricultural holdings in that Province
    and administrative matters, whereas only the                   which produce significant quantities of extra virgin olive
    Commission as a whole or the Director-General for              oil from Tuscany. Hitherto, all the applicants have used,
    Personnel and Administration was competent to sign             as they saw fit, the designation Colli Fiorentini'
    it.                                                            (Florentine Hills) (or Colline di Firenze' (Hill Country of
                                                                   Florence) or di Firenze' (of Florence), and the like).
                                                                   Considering themselves to be adversely affected by the
Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as
                                                                   contested Regulation, in so far as it establishes toscano'
    enshrined in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations, and
                                                                   (Tuscan) as a protected geographical indication, and
    of Article 45(1) of those Regulations, inasmuch as the
                                                                   provides for the application of the related rules, which
    appointing authority failed in the present case to
                                                                   make it compulsory to adopt a single main common
    consider the comparative merits of those eligible, as
                                                                   designation for all olives from Tuscany and do not permit
    provided for therein.
                                                                   the more specific indication Colli Fiorentini' (or similar)
                                                                   to be used as appropriate. According to the applicants,
                                                                   notwithstanding the fact that Colli Fiorentini' is the only
                                                                   indication enabling a prestigious product to be effectively
                                                                   distinguished from other, more ordinary, products from
                                                                   other areas of Tuscany, it has been relegated in status to a
Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale                mere indicator of a sottozona' (sub-area).
degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria
Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio             In support of their claims, the applicants plead
Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di            infringement of Articles 2 and 17 of Council Regulation
Firenze, SocietaÁ Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda         (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 and Article 43 of the
Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta                 Treaty establishing the European Communities. They
Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il               maintain not only that Community legislation does
        Bottaio against Commission of the European                 not recognise sub-areas' or additional geographical
                         Communities                               particulars', but also that a protected geographical
                       (Case T-78/98)                              indication' for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2081/92, broken down and subdivided into
                        (98/C 234/61)
                                                                   sub-areas' or additional geographical particulars' seems
                                                                   to be a legal nonsense, given that the sub-divisions in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     question ought really to have been recognised as genuine
                                                                   independent protected designations of origin'. In other
An action against the Commission of the European                   words, even though a product such as extra virgin olive
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  oil produced in the Florentine Hills satisfies, according to
Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 1998                the applicants, all the requirements set out in
by the Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze and         Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, it has
Others, represented by Vittorio Chierroni, of the Florence         been relegated Ð by means of the contested geographical
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              indication, which the related rules in fact divide in terms
Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                       of sub-areas Ð to a mere specification within that
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
geographical indication, as a result of a decision which            Executive Director of the EMEA definitively classified the
gives more the impression of a political compromise than            applicant upon recruitment in Grade 7, step 3.
the final legitimate outcome of a procedure for recognition
of a quality product.
                                                                    The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EMEA
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment by that
The applicants also argue that on 11 March 1996 the                 classification on the ground that he had not shown to
Director of Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) of the             have twelve years of experience, five of which of practical
Commission advised the Italian State that the proposal put          experience in the field specified in the job description for
forward on 22 January 1994 (that is to say, well beyond             which he had applied. That manifest error of assessment
the deadline set in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC)               prejudices the applicant's career prospect and runs counter
No 2081/92) to break down the designation of Tuscan'               to the principle of legitimate expectations.
origin in terms of sub-areas by way of variants' was not
permissible. On that basis, the applicants are at a loss to
understand how the Commission was able, ultimately, to
grant recognition of the protected geographical indication
Tuscan' and the related rules, which entail precisely those
variants' Ð sub-areas Ð which are clearly not permissible
in that, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)                 Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA
No 2081/92, they were proposed out of time.                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-80/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 234/63)
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs
Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the
              Evaluation of Medicinal Products                      An action against the Commission of the European
                       (Case T-79/98)                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/62)                               by CIT Belgique SA, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                    of the Trapani Bar, Claudio Tesauro and Francesco
                (Language of the case: French)                      Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er
An action against European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (the EMEA) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              The applicant claims that the Court should:
23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez,
residing at London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclerq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Ð annul the measure contained in a letter of 23 March
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service            1998 whereby the Commission closed tender
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.aÁ.r.l., 30 Rue de                  procedure 97/33/IX.C.1, and all preceding, subsequent
Cessange.                                                               and/or connected acts and in particular the decision to
                                                                        award the contract for Travel agency services to
                                                                        provide tickets and associated services, especially hotel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reservations relating to business trips made by officials
                                                                        and agents on missions' (OJ 1998 p. 83);
Ð annul the EMEA's decision classifying the applicant in
    Grade A 7, step 3;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to make good the harm suffered
                                                                        by CIT as a result of the unlawful award of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 contract to BBL Travel for the provision of travel
                                                                        agency services to officials and other agents on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     mission;
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including the
A 7, passed competition EMEA/A/105. The experience                      costs incurred by the applicant by way of legal fees.
required for classification in Grade A 5 was of 12 years,
at least five years of which were to be of practical
experience.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Although the Director General of the EMEA had indicated             The contested decision constitutes the last stage of a
in a letter to the applicant that he intended to engage him         tender procedure followed by the defendant for the award
as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5, the                of the contract for the provision of travel agency services