ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
C 4/6 EN 6.1.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative Action brought on 16 October 2000 by SAT.1 Satel-
litenFernsehen GmbH against the Office for Harmonis- Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others
against Commission of the European Communities ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case T-323/00)
(Case T-235/00)
(2001/C 4/09)
(2001/C 4/08)
(Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the (Language of the case: Italian)
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
16 October 2000 by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, Mainz
and Berlin, Germany, represented by Rheinhard Schneider, ofBüsing, Müffelmann & Theye, Bremen (Germany). An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 September 2000 by CooperativeCodess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others, represent- The applicant claims that the Court should:
ed by Franca Gajulli and Isabella Gianniotti, of the Venice Bar.
— annul and declare invalid the decision of the Second
Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 August 2000 in
Case R 312/99-2; The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendant to pay the costs.— annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision
2000/394/EEC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms inVenice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security
contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995,Pleas in law and main argumentsor annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 thereof, and declare
applicable the exemption provided for by Article 86(2) of
the Treaty (services of general economic interest) to the
Mark: Wordmark ‘SAT. 2’ — Appli- applicant;
cation No 513135
Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 35, — order the Commission to pay the costs.
38, 41, 42 (including distribution
of radio and television pro-
grammes, production of films and
television programmes, distri-bution of film rights, development
Pleas in law and main arguments of software)
Decision contested Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board ofThe pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon inAppeal:Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission. (
1)Pleas in law: — misapplication of Article
7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)No 40/94
— misapplication of Article(1) See p. 5 of this Official Journal.7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC)No 40/94
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 257/13

Action brought on 29 July 2005 by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

(Case T-297/05)

(2005/C 257/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties:

Applicant(s): IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Prieß, lawyer, M. Niestedt, lawyer, and C. Pitschas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 13 May 2005 (ENTR/01/Audit/RVDZ/ss D(2005) 11382) to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance to the applicant in the sum of ECU 530 000 within the framework of the ECODATA-Project of 4 August 1992 (003977/XXIII/A3 — S92/DG/ENV8/LD/kz);

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission granted the applicant financial assistance in the sum of ECU 530 000 on 4 August 1992 in order to set up a database for ecological tourism in Europe. That decision was cancelled by the defendant by the contested decision of 13 May 2005.

The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful. The applicant states in the grounds of its complaint that the conditions for cancelling a decision have not been met, since the factors relied on by the Commission in order to justify its decision are unfounded in law and moreover it is no longer possible to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance on account of the amount of time that has elapsed. The applicant further asserts that the contested decision is in breach of the principle of good administration and the principle of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC. Finally, the applicant complains that there has been an infringement of the prohibition on reissuing decisions which have been declared void.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/42

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-33/05)

(2005/C 82/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama S.A., established in Navalmoral de la Mata (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty [C(2004) 4030 final] in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 – Raw Tobacco Spain;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision at issue is the same as in case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission (1).

All the allegations are based on the principle of proportionality. That is clear from the fact that the practices investigated were engaged in a market of EUR 25 million and that the fines imposed amount to almost the same sum. In particular, CETARSA was unprepared for a fine equivalent to 7.5 % of its turnover in 2003.

In support of its arguments the applicant relies on the following pleas:

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment arising from the imposition of substantial fines on processors and token fines on producers on the basis of arguments applicable to both sectors.

— Incorrect assessment of the facts of the case (official support for regulation of the sector by way of agreements between producers and processors, the limited scale of the markets affected, the absence of effects, etc) which would have justified considering the practices involved as 'serious' conduct, rather than 'very serious'

— Incorrect assessment of the duration of the practices.

— Incorrect assessment of the applicant's participation in the practices complained of, which was based solely on its market share and failed to take account of other factors which distinguish its position.

— The methodology used by the Commission in order to determine the basic amounts leads to the imposition of disproportionate fines in the case of small undertakings, such as the applicant.

— Arbitrary application of the Leniency Notice without any justification by the Commission of that difference in treatment and the breach of the applicant's rights of defence.

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/41

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC Foret v Commission

(Case T-191/06)

(2006/C 212/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FMC Foret S.A. (Sant Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: M. Seimetz, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant, as far as it is concerned, seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate, on the basis of which the Commission found that the undertakings concerned had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a single and continuous infringement regarding hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate, covering the whole EEA territory, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements.

In support of its claims for a reduction of charges, the applicant mainly contends the evidentiary standard set by the Commission on its behalf and, secondly, pleads violation of its rights of defence.

The applicant, first, claims the Commission has failed to discharge the burden of proof and has not engaged in a reasonable appraisal of the evidence relating to the existence of a cartel. Thus, the applicant criticises the Commission for having relied on vague and uncorroborated allegations contained in leniency applications submitted by other undertakings, despite its Hearing Officer concerns.

The applicant further submits that both its testimony and evidence produced at various instances of the procedure in order to demonstrate the falsity of submissions against it went unchallenged, to be finally rejected by the Commission without justification.

The applicant, secondly, accuses the Commission of having wrongfully withheld evidence from it. In this respect, it was allegedly denied the right of defence with regards to access in the replies given to the Commission's Statement of Objections, while it claims to have demonstrated, in its own reply, its refusal to participate in cartel activities.

Finally, FMC Foret estimates the fine levied by the Commission against it excessive and disproportionate with regard to its turnover and given the wholly passive role it claims to have played in the alleged cartel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/63

Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products)

(Case T-308/06)

(2006/C 326/135)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, USA) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market of 8 September 2006 in case R 1094/2005-2;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products’ for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25 — application No 2 099 018

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Werner & Mertz GmbH

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘BÚFALO’ for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the proof of use filed for the first time before it and outside the time limit set forth by the Opposition Division.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/14

Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Meyer-Falk v Commission

(Case T-251/06)

(2008/C 236/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Meyer-Falk (Bruchsal, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 6 November 2006, by which it refused the applicant access to two documents relating to the fight against organised crime and to judicial reform in Bulgaria. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant made an application for the grant of legal aid, which was granted by the Court of First Instance by decision of 21 January 2008.

In support of its action the applicant claims, first, in essence, that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration, since the applicant's application for access to the documents was refused despite the fact that the documents were made accessible to the public with the exception of the applicant.

The applicant claims, second, that the application of Article 4(1)(a) and (b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/22

Action brought on 4 December 2006 — BAM NBM Wegenbouw and HBG Civiel v Commission

(Case T-354/06)

(2007/C 20/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimants: BAM NBM Wegenbouw BV and HBG Civiel BV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it found that BAM NBM and HBG Civiel had breached Article 81 EC, fines were imposed on BAM NBM and HBG Civiel in that regard, BAM NBM and HBG Civiel were enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequence, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM NBM and HBG Civiel;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimants are challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimants for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of their action, the claimants submit, in the first place, that the decision is at variance with Article 81 EC and with Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, as well as being contrary to the principle laid down in Article 253 EC that measures must state the reasons on which they are based. In the opinion of the claimants, the Commission incorrectly established and interpreted the facts, and there is insufficient evidence to support the contention that the claimants infringed Article 81 EC.

In the alternative, the claimants submit that Article 2 of the decision is at variance with Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the guidelines on setting fines. (1). In the claimants' view, the gravity of the alleged infringement was incorrectly assessed. As a consequence, they argue, the infringement was wrongly classified as being very serious and the fine imposed was disproportionate.

In conclusion, it is submitted, the adoption of the decision was accompanied by a breach of essential procedural requirements, inter alia in that the Commission did not provide the claimants with any opportunity to examine the responses of the oil companies and the other road construction companies to the heads of complaint raised, even though the claimants had made a request in that regard.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/31

Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-2/07)

(2007/C 56/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, in that it reduces the assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects No 2001 ES 16 C PE 050 (Clearance of the hydrographical basin of the Júcar 2001-Group2)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed at Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006, which reduced the assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects No 2001 ES 16 C PE 050, performed in Spain and designated as ‘Clearance of the hydrographical basin of the Júcar 2001-Group 2’.

It concerns a comprehensive group of three different projects which received assistance of EUR 11 266 701, which was reduced by virtue of the impugned decision by EUR 1 900 281.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges incorrect and incoherent interpretation of Directive 92/17/EEC (1), in so far as it relates to the criterion of experience (Article 30(1) and (2)) and to the use of the system of average prices (Article 30(1)).

Regarding the inclusion of the ‘criterion of experience’ as one of the criteria for the contract award, while that criterion is not expressly provided for in the applicable rules, it is submitted that Community case-law allows for that possibility, and that the use of that criterion can in no way constitute a grave and manifest infringement of the Community rules, or, in any event, can only amount to an excusable error of law on account of lack of clarity of the applicable rule.

On the other hand, the applicant disputes that the use of the system of average prices, used during the analysis of the most economically advantageous tender in the projects awarded, infringes the principle of equal treatment, by discriminating in favour of excessively low tenders compared with other more expensive tenders.

In the alternative, the applicant also alleges breach of Article H (2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, (2) on the ground of infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty; and, in respect of Contract No 2000/GV/2005, breach of the principle of proportionality, as well as breach of Article 19 of the Directive No 93/37, cited above.

(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/49

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Kaučuk v Commission

(Case T-44/07)

(2007/C 82/102)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaučuk a.s. (Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Powell and K. Kuik, solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 1 to 3 of the contested decision in whole or in part insofar as they are addressed to the applicant;

— alternatively, annul Article 2 of the contested decision insofar as it imposes a fine of EUR 17.55 million on Kaučuk and fix a substantially lower fine; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:

— erred in law by imputing the conduct of its sales intermediary Tavorex, an independent legal entity, to the applicant;

— erred by failing to prove to the requisite legal standard that Tavorex was involved in a single and continuous infringement from November 1999 until November 2002;

— committed a manifest error of appreciation by finding the same facts sufficient to prove Tavorex's involvement but insufficient to prove the involvement of another producer;

— erred in law by applying EC competition law to the applicant and Tavorex without establishing a sufficient connection between the applicant/Tavorex, the activity concerned and the territory of the European Communities contrary to the case law on extraterritorial application of EC competition law;

— committed a manifest error of law and appreciation in finding that the applicant, through Tavorex, committed an infringement regarding butadiene rubber, a product the applicant neither produces nor sells;

— failed to establish, for the purposes of setting the fine, whether the applicant, through Tavorex, committed the infringement intentionally or negligently; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/35

Action brought on 8 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften v Commission

(Case T-154/07)

(2007/C 155/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Liften BV (Krimpen aan den IJssel, Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and A.C.E. Stoffer, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators).

In support of its application the applicant invokes the same pleas in law as those put forward in Case T-144/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission.

The applicant also submits that, by increasing the basic amount of the fine by a deterrence factor of 100 %, the Commission infringed Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and the guidelines for setting fines based thereon (2), as well as the principles of proportionality and equality. The applicant contends further that, contrary to Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the guidelines on fines, the Commission imposed a 50 % increase in the fine in respect of repeat offences.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2) Commission notice: Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/65

Action brought on 14 September 2007 — El Fatmi v Council

(Case T-362/07)

(2007/C 269/119)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Nouriddin El Fatmi (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 inapplicable and/or annul Decision 2007/445 in so far as those measures relate to the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) is not applicable to him inasmuch as there is no connection whatsoever between the common foreign and security policy and the applicant.

Second, the applicant submits that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable to him inasmuch as he is not committing, or attempting to commit, participating in or facilitating the commission of any act of terrorism.

In conclusion, the applicant contends that the contested decision is at variance with the principle of proportionality and is inadequately reasoned.