Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2001 in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)
Date: 2002-02-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, appeal to the Court (EU), appointment of staff, information technology profession, servant (EU)

2.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 31/11

V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 24 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 October 2001

1.

2.

The application is dismissed.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.

in Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Action for failure to act — Communication under Article 6
of Regulation No 2542/98 — Taking of position bringing
infringement to an end — No need to adjudicate)

(2002/C 31/23)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 September 2001

in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation
(Trade Marks and Designs)
in the Internal Market

(OHIM) (1)

In Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau, residing in France, represented
by M. Fauconnet,
lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: E. Gippini Fournier) — application for a declaration
that the Commission refrained, contrary to the Treaty, from
ruling on a complaint concerning alleged infringements of
Article 81 EC — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
H. Legal,
Jung, Registrar, made an order on
19 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges; H.

(Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application
— Inadmissibility)

1.

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(2002/C 31/22)

(Language of the case: English)

(1) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.

In Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA, having its registered office in
Darmstadt, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — action
brought against Decision R 299/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 concerning the
registration of the term ‘OSTEOCALCIUM’ as a Community
trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 September
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 21 September 2001

in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European
Communities

(Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision
to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)

(2002/C 31/24)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-138/01 R: F, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Court of Auditors of the European Communities

C 31/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.2.2002

(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application
for suspension of operation of the decision of 4 December
2000 of the appointing authority concerning the reassignment
of the applicant to the translation service — the President of
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 21 September
2001, in which he:

1. Dismissed the application for interim measures;

2.

Reserved the costs.

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-251/01)

(2002/C 31/25)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corpor-
ation, represented by Mr Koen Platteau of Linklaters & Alliance,
Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 18 July
2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,
in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 12,2 million on the
applicant, or, at the least, substantially reduce this fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a Japanese manufacturer of graphite electrodes
and other graphite products. By the contested decision, fines
were imposed on the applicant and seven other companies for
having infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the
graphite electrodes sector. The fine imposed on the applicant
was of EUR 12,2 million. Parallel proceedings relating to these
agreements and practices have been undertaken in other
jurisdictions, e.g. in the United States.

The applicant does not substantially contest the facts men-
tioned by the Commission in the contested decision, and the
pleas in its application relate to the amount of the fine
imposed.

The applicant submits that the fine is unlawful, essentially
since it violates the duty of proportionality and of equal
treatment. It alleges that the Commission has acted unlawfully
and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5, 81 and 253 of the EC
Treaty by merely determining the basic amount of the fine on
the basis of the applicant’s world-wide turnover and not taking
into account the scope of
its activities in the EEA. The
categorisation used by the Commission for the establishment
of the basic amount of fine and the setting of this amount
violate the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
violated the general principles of fairness and ‘non bis in idem’
by not taking into account the sanctions previously imposed
on the applicant by the US competition authorities.

Finally, it alleges that, when examining possible mitigating
circumstances, the Commission violated the principles of equal
treatment and of proportionality by not making sufficient
distinction between the Japanese producers, all being regarded
as active members of the cartel. By disregarding the applicant’s
passive role and ‘follow my leader’ approach, the Commission
has disregarded its own Guidelines as well as the case law of
the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graph-
ite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-252/01)

(2002/C 31/26)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/
Graphite Group, Inc., represented by Mr Marc Seimetz and
Mr Jean Brücher of Brücher & Seimetz in association with
Dechert, Luxembourg (Luxembourg).