CELEX: C2000/247/51
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-142/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel against the Commission of the European Communities

26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel                       Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Servier against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                         (Case T-142/00)
                                                                                                  (Case T-147/00)
                         (2000/C 247/51)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 247/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Huffel, residing at Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented              European Communities on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.             Servier, represented by Elisabethann Wright of White & Case,
                                                                         Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of the selection board in internal
       competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application sub-              —     declare that the decision of the Commission of 9 March
       mitted by the applicant;                                                2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                               ations for medicinal products for human use which
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   contain the substances ‘Dexfenfluramine’ and ‘Fenflurami-
                                                                               ne’ is invalid and should be annulled.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     award the applicant the costs of the present action.
The applicant states that, since December 1995, he has worked
continuously for the Commission under successive contracts               Pleas in law and main arguments
as an in-house consultant, as a member of the auxiliary staff
and as a member of the temporary staff. In December 1999 he
applied to take part in internal competition COM/TA/99                   The contested decision requires the Member States to withdraw
organised by the Commission for the constitution of a reserve            the marketing authorisations of Dexfenfluramine and Fenflura-
list of grade A7/A8 and A5/A4 administrators and principal               mine containing medicinal products. The applicant manufac-
administrators. The selection board in that competition                  tures pharmaceutical products containing these substances.
decided to reject his application on the ground that he did not
fulfil the condition requiring applicants to be members of the
regular staff of the Commission who had entered into service             It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
by no later than 1 February 1997, as provided for in the notice          grounds:
of competition.
                                                                         —     The decision was not addressed to the applicant as the
                                                                               holder of the marketing authorisation, contrary to the
The applicant claims that that decision is illegal, since it is                terms of the relevant legislation.
based, first, on an irregular administrative situation which itself
resulted from an abuse of process and, second, on an unlawful
condition for admission to the competition, inasmuch as it is            —     The criteria set forth in Directive 65/65 (1), as interpreted
contrary to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.                               by the European Court, for the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                               authorisation are that the product is harmful in the
                                                                               normal conditions of use or that its therapeutic effect is
He further maintains that, in considering that he did not form                 lacking. The decision does not rely upon these criteria,
part of the regular staff of the Commission at the material                    but mentions other criteria.
time, the selection board committed a manifest error of
assessment.
                                                                         —     By reading the same CPMP report in 1996 and in
                                                                               2000 as conveying radically different information, the
                                                                               Commission made a manifest error of appreciation in
                                                                               reaching its decision.