You are on page 1of 2

C 45/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.2.

2001

Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia & Pleas in law and main arguments
Upjohn S.A. against the Commission of the European
Communities The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in
Case T-344/00 (1) CECA v Commission.

(Case T-345/00)
(1) See p. 19 of this Official Journal.

(2001/C 45/43)

(Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth against
the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the (Case T-348/00)
European Communities on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia
& Upjohn S.A., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk (2001/C 45/44)
Brinckman, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.

(Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— declare pursuant to Article 232 EC that the Commission European Communities on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth,
has failed to comply with its obligations under Com- residing at Lenzkirch (Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons,
munity law by failing to take the necessary measures for of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to Regulation at the Chambers of C. Turk, 13a Avenue Guillaume.
No 2377/90 following the issuing of the positive opinion
of the CVMP and in particular to draw up a draft The applicant claims that the Court should:
regulation including progesterone in Annex II and sub-
mitting it to the Standing Committee for approval; — declare the application admissible and well founded;

— rule that there exists no basis on which recovery may be
— order the Community, as represented here by the Com- sought from the applicant pursuant to Article 85 of the
mission, to repair the damage suffered by the applicant Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communi-
as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to act ties;
and to set the amount of this compensation for the
damage suffered so far at EURO 271,170, or any other — rule that special circumstances have existed as regards the
amount reflecting the damage suffered by the applicant applicant since 24 September 1998 and that he therefore
as further established by it in the course of these continues to be entitled to receive the household allow-
proceedings, especially taking due account of future ance pursuant to Article 1(c) of Annex VII to the Staff
damage; Regulations;

— consequently, order the European Commission to:
— in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the
Court within a reasonable period from the date of the (1) repay the sum of EUR 2 543,20 which has been
judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation deducted, together with interest from the dates on
agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agree- which the deductions were respectively made;
ment, order the parties to produce to the Court within
the same period their submissions with detailed figures in (2) repay the sum of DEM 1 053,18 which has been
support; deducted, likewise with interest from the dates on
which the deductions were respectively made;

— order that interest at the annual rate of 8 %, or any other (3) continue to pay the household allowance to the
appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, shall be applicant with effect from March 2000, together
paid on the amount payable as from the date of the with compensatory interest from the payment dates
Court’s judgment until actual payment of that amount; which have passed since then;

— order the Commission to pay statutory interest on all the
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present sums in question and to pay the costs, including the
proceedings. procedural costs.
10.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/21

Pleas in law and main arguments (4) order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ings.
The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of
17 August 2000 to stop paying the household allowance and
to deduct from the applicant’s monthly pension for the period Pleas in law and main arguments
from April 2000 to January 2001 the household allowance
alleged by the Commission to have been unduly paid since Free Trade Foods NV (‘FTF’) owns a sugar factory on Curaçao.
24 September 1998, the date of the death of the applicant’s In 2000 it intended to process approximately 50 000 tonnes.
spouse.
FTF is entirely dependent on the processing of C-sugar
The applicant claims that, since the death of his wife, he has originating in the Community, which, as a result of EC/OCT
been in a situation of the type referred to in Article 1(c) of cumulation, obtains an OCT origin and can thus be imported
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and that he therefore into the Community free from duty.
continues to be entitled to receive the household allowance.
As a result of the third safeguard measure a very limited quota
of 4 848 tonnes now applies.

FTF sets out the following four pleas in law in support of
annulment of the third safeguard measure and payment of
Action brought on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade compensation:
Foods NV against the Commission of the European
Communities 1. Infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;

(Case T-350/00) 2. Infringement of the order of priority established in the
EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;
(2001/C 45/45)
3. Infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
guard Measures (concluded within the framework of the
(Language of the case: Dutch) WTO), together with infringement of Article 300(7) EC;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- 4. Illegality of Regulation No 2553/97.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV, having its registered office in Curaçao (Netherlands (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
Antilles), represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, of the
measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
Trenité Van Doorne Chambers, Rotterdam and Brussels, with of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of De 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64).
Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods to be
admissible;

(2) annul Regulation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización
introducing safeguard measures for imports from the de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congela-
overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products dores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European
with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (hereinafter ‘the third Communities
safeguard measure’) (1);
(Case T-359/00)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage incurred
by Free Trade Foods as a result of the third safeguard
measure, that the parties reach agreement on the extent (2001/C 45/46)
of the damage incurred by Free Trade Foods, and, in the
absence of agreement on that matter, that the procedure
be continued, within a period to be set by the Court, to (Language of the case: Spanish)
determine the extent of that damage, and order the
Community to pay compensation for the damage as An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
provisionally estimated and still to be estimated; in the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
alternative, it should order the Community to pay such European Communities on 24 November 2000 by the Orga-
compensation as the Court may reasonably determine, nización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
plus applicable interest from the date of the document Congeladores (OPAGAC), whose registered office is at Madrid,
instituting these proceedings until the date of full pay- represented by Jesús Casas Robla and Vanessa Arrastia de la
ment; Sierra.