Case T-310/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), dominant position, economic concentration, electrical equipment, merger control, restriction on competition

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/15

Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider
Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-310/01)

(2002/C 56/28)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Schneider
Electric S.A., established at Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
resented by Francis Herbert, Jacques Steenbergen and Marc
Pittie, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring a
concentration to be incompatible with the common
market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand), by
finding that Article 10(5) of Council Regulation
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings is not applicable to
the present case;

— alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring
a concentration to be incompatible with the common
market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand);

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

In support of its application, the applicant pleads, first, various
infringements of the procedural rules. Thus, the Commission
extended the time-limit within which it was required to
adopt the decision,
in breach of Article 10 of Regulation
No 4064/89 (1). Nor did the decision extending that time-limit
indicate the reasons for it or the conduct on the part of the
applicant which caused it to be extended.

Further, the applicant complains of a violation of its rights of
defence. First, the statement of objections does not tally with
the final decision. Second, the access to the file was irregular
and the Commission did not communicate all the facts relied
on in the contested decision.

Next, according to the applicant, the hearing officer did not
faithfully reproduce the applicant’s objection. Moreover, the
hearing officer did not comply with his duty to be objective.
Thus, there has been an infringement of the applicant’s rights
of defence and of the Commission’s decision on the terms of
reference of hearing officers (2).

Lastly, the applicant complains of violation of the principles
of sound administration, of
legitimate
expectations and of collegiate responsibility within the Com-
mission, and of infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

the protection of

Second, the applicant pleads several infringements of Article 2
of Regulation No 4064/89 and infringement of Article 253 of
the EC Treaty as regards the methodology applied by the
Commission and its analysis of the national markets.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the parent company of a group engaged in
the manufacture and sale of products and systems in the
sectors of electrical installations, industrial control and auto-
mation. On 16 February 2001 it formally notified the Com-
mission of the merger which it was planning with Legrand, the
parent company of a group engaged in the manufacture and
sale of electrical low voltage switchgear equipment.

Thus,
the Commission takes the national markets as its
reference framework but goes on to make a global assessment
of the effects of the concentration, without providing any
statement of reasons and in breach of Article 2 of Regulation
No 4064/89. Moreover, according to the applicant, its analysis
of the various national markets also infringes Article 2 of
Regulation No 4064/89 and is not supported by an adequate
statement of reasons. The applicant maintains that the analysis
is erroneous in stating that
the concentration created a
dominant position.

The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar-
ing that concentration to be incompatible with the common
market and the EEA Agreement.

Third, the applicant advances various pleas concerning the
assessment and the way in which the applicant’s proposals for
the giving of undertakings are presented.

C 56/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

Thus,
it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.

In addition, according to the applicant,
the Commission
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point,
in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the
principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).

(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

TRUCCO S.p.A.

The Community trade
mark applied for:

the pictorial mark registered by
the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
Class
9 — Application
No 1043090

Proprietor of the trade-
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

the applicant

Trade-mark
opposed:

right

the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
No 16147)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the opposition

rejection of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

— risk of confusion between

the two marks;

Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-311/01)

(2002/C 56/29)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
been drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade
mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

— infringement of Article 74(1)
(EC)

Regulation

of
No 40/94 (1).

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-315/01)

(2002/C 56/30)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
Partners), of London (United Kingdom).