Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and Others against European Parliament and Council of the European Union

    (Case T-321/03)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244 other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Rampal, avocats.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(declare that the Community has, through the European Parliament and the Council, incurred non-contractual liability, and order the defendants to make good all loss suffered by the applicants on account of the directive in question;

(declare that interest at the annual rate of 8% (or at an appropriate rate to be fixed by the Court) is payable from the date of the Court's decision finding the Community liable until the time of payment;

(order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application claims compensation for the damage supposedly caused by Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC. ¹

The abovementioned directive introduces a requirement that manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs should indicate on their labels the precise quantities (in percentages) of all feed materials included in each feedingstuff. By so doing it establishes quite new labelling rules for compound feedingstuffs which, according to the applicants, will result in the compulsory divulgence of the know-how and fundamental commercial secrets of the compound feedingstuff manufacturers. The introduction of those rules will enable the compound feedingstuff manufacturers' customers to know not only the formula but also the exact cost of the feed materials, so that the applicants will, they argue, lose their greatest vehicle of competition and their very existence could be jeopardised.

In support of their claims the applicants maintain that the contested directive:

(infringes their know-how and commercial secrets which are protected in the Community legal order;

(fails to have regard to protection of undistorted competition, to reinforcement of the competitiveness of the Community industry and encouragement of technological R. & D.;

(infringes the right to property and the right to carry on economic activity freely;

(militates against improvement of agricultural products and protection of the environment;

(violates the principle of proportionality;

(treats the applicants unequally in comparison with traders active in the sphere of foodstuffs for human beings;

(was adopted on the wrong legal basis. The directive at issue ought to have been based on Article 37 of the EC Treaty and not on Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty, since it has nothing to do with the veterinary and phytosanitary field.

____________

¹ - (OJEU L 63 of 6 June 2002, p. 23.