You are on page 1of 1

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