Case T-239/01: Action brought on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon AG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), carbon, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice

C 3/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Registered German trade mark
‘TUFFTRIDE’ in classes 1, 7 and 11

by the authorities in the USA had ended inter alia with the
imposition of a fine on the applicant.

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the Opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the Appeal by the
applicant

Grounds of claim:

Articles 8(1)(b) and 7(1)(f) of
Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon AG
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/01)

(2002/C 3/59)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon
AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann,
F. Wiemer and C. Canenbley, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision C(2001) 1986 final of 18 July 2001;

— in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the
fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;

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

In response to the statement of objections the applicant stated
to the defendant that it expressly did not contest the facts set
out by the defendant. At the same time it submitted that the
fine imposed in the USA should be credited when the
defendant calculated the fines or at least be appropriately taken
into account.

the
In the contested decision the defendant alleged that
applicant had participated in a cartel and, when it calculated
the fine, assumed that there was a world market in graphite
electrodes. A fine of Euro 80,2 million was imposed on the
applicant.

The applicant contests the decision has a whole in law. It
submits that the defendant did not take into account the
fact that the applicant had already been penalised in other
jurisdictions for the same act. In particular, it gave no credit at
all for the fines already imposed in other States and did not
take account of the applicability of the rule against double
punishment (‘ne bis im idem’). As a separate matter, the
infringed Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of
defendant
Regulation No 17/62 because it wrongly calculated the fine in
the light of the application of the guidelines on the method of
setting fines (1) and the notice on the non-imposition or
infringed central
reduction of
principles of equal treatment and proportionality and commit-
ted errors of law and of assessment to the detriment of the
applicant at each stage of calculating the fine. Moreover, the
defendant misassessed inter alia the extent of the applicant’s
cooperation.

fines in cartel cases (2).

It

(1) OJ C 9 of 14.1.1998,p. 3.
(2) OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4.

Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) N.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-242/01)

(2002/C 3/60)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: Dutch)

The applicant manufactures various carbon and graphite
products, including graphite electrodes. In the course of a
procedure seeking information under Article 11 of Regulation
No 17/62 concerning suspected anti-competitive agreements
between undertakings on the market for graphite electrodes,
the applicant stated to the defendant that it was willing to
cooperate in the investigation of the case. A similar procedure

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods
(Free Zone) N.V., established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represent-
ed by G. van der Wal, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.