Case T-333/01: Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU control, European Commission, French Polynesia, action for failure to act, aid system, farmer

C 68/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.3.2002

Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-330/01)

(2002/C 68/28)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Finally, given the significance of the applicant in the market,
the multiplication factor applied as regards the amount of the
fine infringes Articles 81 and 83 of the EC Treaty and
Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (1), inasmuch as, according
to the applicant, the Commission may only take into account
the seriousness and duration of the breach and may not take
account of the economic weight attaching to the undertaking
concerned. Moreover, an insufficient statement of reasons has
been given for that multiplication factor.

(1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81]
and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
p. 87).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V., established at Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by
Martijn van Empel and Christoforus Raymundus Albertus
Swaak, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision of
2 October 2001 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
alternatively annul Article 3 of the decision in conjunction
with point 388 in the preamble thereto, by declaring void
the multiplication factor of 2,5 in so far as this is applied
to the applicant;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the parent company of Akzo Nobel Chemicals
B.V., which was in turn involved, through Glucona N.V., in a
cartel relating to the sale of sodium gluconate. In the contested
decision, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty.

According to the applicant, the Commission has infringed the
principle of proportionality and Article 253 of the EC Treaty
by failing, when fixing the fine, to take sufficient account of
the limited size of the product market and the significance of
each undertaking in that market.

The applicant
further pleads infringement of Articles 81
and 253 of the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
Commission has not shown that the applicant can be held
liable for the offences committed by Glucona B.V. and the
applicant’s subsidiary company.

Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer
against Council of the European Union and Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-333/01)

(2002/C 68/29)

(Language of the case: French)

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 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer, residing in Uturoa
(French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
ties committed an administrative fault characterised by
serious failure to act and by the unlawful failure to fulfil
its obligations to implement and monitor the proper
application in French Polynesia of decisions on the
association of
the overseas countries and territories
(PTOMs);

— declare that the European Commission committed an
administrative fault by providing false information to the
European Parliament regarding the origin of the funds
borrowed from the SOCREDO development bank and
the applicant’s rights under decisions on the association
of the PTOMs, which have direct effect;

— declare that such failures have caused damage to the
applicant which the European Council and the European
Commission must make good;

16.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 68/17

— grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit

The applicant claims that the Court should:

figures for its claims;

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1)
and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of
the
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
smallholders in French Polynesia.

(1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
of the overseas countries and territories with the European
Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).

(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
of the overseas countries and territories with the European
Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).

Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)

(Case T-334/01)

(2002/C 68/30)

(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
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).

— annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
2000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Chassot AG

The Community trade
mark applied for:

the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)

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

Trade-mark right oppo-
sed:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Grounds of claim:

the applicant

the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
VIT’
in Class 31
(feedingstuffs)

for goods

rejection of the opposition

rejection of the applicant’s appeal

— infringement of Articles 8
and 15 of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1);

— misinterpretation of Arti-
cle 15 of the regulation;

— violation of the right to a fair

hearing;

— infringement of the first and
of
the regu-

second
Article 74(1) of
lation;

sentences

— infringement of Article 73 of

the regulation.

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

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