Case T-242/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), cocoa, import, quantitative restriction, sugar industry

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.

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/35

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001;

(2) declare that the Community is liable for the loss and
damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
that, since 19 July 2001, imports of the products referred
to in Regulation No 1476/2001 have been prevented or
restricted on account of that regulation, and order that
the parties are to seek to reach agreement concerning the
extent of the loss and damage suffered by the applicant
and that, in the absence of agreement in that regard, the
proceedings are to be resumed within a time-limit to be
fixed by the Court in order for the extent of the loss and
damage to be determined; or, at any rate, order the
Community to pay the damages provisionally estimated
and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the Community
to pay such amount of damages as the Court shall deem
fair and equitable, together with interest at the annual
rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the date of
payment in full;

(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant produces,
in Aruba, sugar and sugar/cocoa
mixtures. Aruba forms part of the association of overseas
countries and territories (OCTs). By virtue of the cumulation
of EC/OCT and ACP/OCT originating status, the sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by the applicant have OCT
originating status and may be imported into the EC free from
levies.

However, by
virtue of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (1) amending Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), a quota of
6 684 tonnes was introduced for mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with ACP/OCT originating status during the period from
19 July to 1 December 2001.

of the OCT decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
prove any causal
link between those problems and the
deterioration in a sector of the Community’s activity. The
applicant further claims that the importation of sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no impact on those
problems.

In addition, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
proportionality and infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184
of the EC Treaty. It claims that the contested regulation fails to
take account of the preferential treatment afforded by those
articles to the OCTs.

Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers on the part of
the Commission and a failure to provide a statement of reasons
for the contested regulation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
L 195 of 19.7.2001, p. 29).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001,
p. 57).

Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer
Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-243/01)

(2002/C 3/61)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant pleads,
the illegality of Regulation
No 1325/2001, which it is contesting in separate proceedings
(Case T-211/01).

first,

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 SONY Com-
puter Entertainment Europe Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
ippe de Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium)

In support of its claim in the present proceedings, the applicant
maintains that the contested regulation infringes Article 109 of
the OCT decision. According to the applicant, the Commission
bases its findings concerning the adoption of the safeguard
measures in question on incorrect facts. Thus, the serious
disturbances or difficulties in a sector of the economy of the
Community cited by the Commission do not constitute serious
disturbances or difficulties within the meaning of Article 109

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) 1400/2001 (1) as
far as it classifies the PlayStation®2 under CN code
9504 10 00 and the accompanying CD-ROM under CN
code 852 43 99 0;

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