CELEX: C1996/354/62
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/96)

23 . 11 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/31
The applicant maintains, in any event, that, at the time of his       22 February 1993 , despite the declaration of annulment in
recruitment, he possessed exceptional qualifications                  the abovementioned judgment.
justifying, in accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou,
recruitment to a higher grade within the career bracket.              In support of his claims, he alleges breach of Articles 26 and
                                                                      35 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 176 and 179 of
                                                                      the Treaty of Rome, and of general principles of law, such as
                                                                      that conferring the authority of res judicata on a final
                                                                      decision against which no appeal lies . In his view, in
                                                                      confirming a decision which had been annulled and by
                                                                      taking no notice of the conditions for complying with the
Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri              judgment and the consequences necessarily entailed, the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  contested decision did not comply with the operative part of
                         Case T-148/96 )                              the judgment of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93 P v. the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities .
                          ( 96/C 354/61 )
                                                                      In that respect, the applicant considers that the appointing
                (Language of the case: French)                        authority did not take the contested decision in the interests
                                                                      of the service or its organization , but misused its powers in
                                                                      order to inflict a disguised disciplinary penalty on the
An action against the Commission of the European                      applicant.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
Brognieri, residing at Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric         His final allegation against the defendant is that his personal
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         file does not contain all the documents concerning his
Luxembourg at the chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort            administrative status, since material used by the
Rheinsheim .                                                          Commission to support its case has neither been
                                                                      communicated to the applicant nor included in his personal
                                                                      file, which demonstrates the existence of a parallel file .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of 28 November 1995 in which the
    appointing authority informed the applicant that it
    confirmed the decision of 22 February 1993
    withdrawing him from shift-work in the fire service and
    that he could not be reinstated in the fire station , even to     Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan
    work days,                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-l 50/96
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of Lit                                       ( 96/C 354/62 )
    2 000 000 by way of compensation for non-material
    damage , together with interest at the rate prescribed by
    law of 8 % as from the date of the decision to be given                           (Language of the case: French)
    until full payment is made,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages and             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    interest corresponding to the sums which he ought to              Instance of the European Communities on 24 September
    have    received  as     shift work   allowance    as   from
                                                                      1 996 by Austin Rowan, residing at Overijse , represented by
    28 November 1995 , the date of the contested decision ,          Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for
    until a valid and lawful decision regularizing his                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Evelyne Korn,
    administrative situation is adopted, together with               21 Rue Nassau .
    default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum to run from
    22 February 1996 , the date on which the applicant
    lodged his complaint,                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — annul the Commission 's decision of 25 October 1995
                                                                           inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade B 5 and, in so far as
                                                                           necessary, the Commission 's decision of 19 June 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rejecting his complaint of 20 February 1996 ,
The applicant, who is employed by the defendant as a                 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
fireman at the Ispra Centre, is the same as in Case T-583/93 ,
which was settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 annulling the
decision of the appointing authority of 22 February 1993 ,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by which the applicant had been excluded from shift work in
the fire-fighting service . This action challenges the decision      The applicant, an official in Grade B 4 at the Commission,
of the defendant institution confirming the decision of              challenges the refusal of the appointing authority to review
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/32            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
his classification in Grade B 5 on his recruitment to the Unit        Denis Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard, of Liedekerke
on the Coordination of Fraud Prevention ( Uclaf).                     Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt &
                                                                      Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
In support of his action he claims to possess exceptional and
very specific qualifications in the fields covered by his duties .
That professional experience was acquired in the context of           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the Irish customs authorities and as a member of the
temporary staff in Uclaf at the Commission .
                                                                      — declare in accordance with Article 184 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           that Directive 96/22/EC, in so far as it prohibits the
First, he claims that the rule laid down by the Court of First             placing on the market of veterinary medicinal products
Instance in the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95                 containing beta-agonists for administration for
Alexopoulou has been disregarded . The applicant considers                 therapeutic purposes to farm animals, is unlawful and
that he fulfils the condition regarding special and                        therefore cannot serve as a justification for the
exceptional qualifications referred to in that judgment.                   restrictions      contained      in     Regulation       ( EC )
According to the applicant, it follows that, by not applying               No 1312/96 ,
to him the exception provided for in Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations, the appointing authority committed a
manifest error of assessment .                                        — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 in so far as it
                                                                           restricts the validity of the MRLs established for
                                                                           Clenbuterol to certain specific therapeutic purposes,
According to the applicant, the Commission merely relied                   and
on general arguments in the contested decision, namely its
own practice of recuiting to the starting grade even in
specialised fields , and on Article 27 of the Staff Regulations,      — order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
which imposes on it very high standards of recruitment,                    proceedings .
without countering any of the specific and precise
arguments he had put forward in his complaint .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant         The application seeks the annulment of Commission
treated him unfairly by comparison with certain of his                Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 ( OJ No L 170,
colleagues who, having been members of the temporary                  9 . 7. 1996 , p. 8 ) in so far as it restricts the validity of the
                                                                      maximum residue limits . ( MRLs ) which it establishes for
staff, were able to retain their grade after passing
competitions to establish them . This situation arises from           Clenbuterol hydrochloride to certain                therapeutical
the fact that the applicant devoted particular efforts to keep        indications in bovine and equine animals .
his post and therefore participated in a general competition
in 1991 , whereas competitions which were less stringent             The applicants state that the Commission has justified such
were held at the end of 1992/early 1993 to establish other            refusal exclusively by the fact that Council Directive
colleagues who , according to the applicant, had not shown            96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 ( OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p. 3 )
the same readiness .                                                  prohibits the administration of Clenbuterol to farm animals
                                                                      except for some specific therapeutic purposes in equines and
                                                                      in cows . They submit, however, that the provisions of that
                                                                      directive are contrary to EC law, as has already been shown
                                                                      in Case T-125/96 ( OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 15 ). They
                                                                      maintain therefore that those provisions should be declared
                                                                      inapplicable in this case .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer                     Accordingly, the applicants consider that the contested
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                   provisions are not substantiated by a proper statement of
Limited Partnership against the Commission of the                    reasons and that, as a result, the contested Regulation does
                     European Communities                             not comply with the requirements set out in Article 190 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty .
                        ( Case T-152/96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/63 )
                                                                     They further maintain that the provisions of the contested
                                                                      Regulation deprive them, without any valid justification, of
               (Language of the case: English)                       their right to manufacture and market most of their
                                                                     veterinary medicinal products containing Clenbuterol,
                                                                      although, in conformity with the relevant EC regulatory
An action against the Commission of the European                      requirements , they hold licences for the marketing of their
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     products .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September
19 96 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H.
Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership, represented by