You are on page 1of 2

C 234/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.7.

98

Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs. with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision. Regulations;

Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
against the Commission of the European Communities Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
(Case T-75/98)
(98/C 234/59) Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
(Language of the case: Italian) Committees took years to complete reach their
findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with (Language of the case: French)
the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of An action against the Commission of the European
participating in the Medical Committee; Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
damage caused in the amount of six times the amount (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and other costs; Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.

3. order the defendant to pay the costs. The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing 1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively. No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
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