Case T-109/02: Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, infringement of EU law, pulp and paper industry, type of business

C 131/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.6.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-
lation of the pension rights acquired by the applicant
prior to his entry into service and transferred to the
Community pension scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of
Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his claim, the applicant pleads non-compliance
with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and
infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations and of the general provisions for the implemen-
tation thereof, as well as breach of the principle of equal
treatment. According to the applicant, the calculation should
have been carried out on the basis of his situation at the time
of entering the service of the Communities as a member of the
temporary staff, and not on the basis of his situation at the
time of his being appointed as an established official, some
nine years later.

Action brought on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos Mavridis
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-97/02)

(2002/C 131/45)

(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 2 April 2002 by Prodromos
Mavridis, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of
equal treatment and career progression. According to the
applicant, his merits were not taken fully into consideration in
the context of the 2001 promotions procedure.

Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-109/02)

(2002/C 131/46)

(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 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A.,
established in Puteaux (France), represented by Robert Saint-
Esteben and Hugues Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of
20 December 2001, reference COMP/E-1/36212 —
Carbonless paper, relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement, in so far as they refer to Bolloré;

— In the alternative, reduce very substantially the amount
of the fine imposed on Bolloré by Article 3 of the
decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the
applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 2001
promotions procedure;

The applicant contests the Commission’s decision finding that
it took part in an agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the
EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.

1.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 131/25

It seeks, first, the annulment of that decision, on the ground
that by finding for the first time in the decision that it was
liable for having personally taken part in the cartel in question,
the Commission upheld a complaint which had not been set
out
in the statement of complaints. Bolloré was in fact
concerned in the procedure only as the 100 % parent company
of Copigraph, the latter being the company which, according
to the Commission, took part in the cartel. Consequently, by
finding against the applicant on the basis of a new complaint
not notified in the statement of complaints, the Commission
prevented it
from defending itself properly and thereby
infringed its rights of defence and right to be heard.

imputing to the applicant

The applicant also claims that there was a breach of Article 81
of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement as a
result of
the anti-competitive
conduct of Copigraph. Bolloré points out that, according to
the latest case-law, the holding of 100 % of the capital of a
company does not in itself mean that the infringing conduct
of the subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company.

In the alternative, the applicant contests the amount of the
fine imposed on it by the Commission, and seeks a very
substantial
infringed
reduction, on the ground that
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the principle of
proportionality.

it

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Axions s.a. and
Christian Belce against Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)

(Case T-110/02)

(2002/C 131/47)

(Language of the case: 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
5 April 2002 by Axions S.A., of Geneva (Switzerland), and
Christian Belce, of Veyrier (Switzerland), represented by C.M.
Eckhartt, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
Appeal of 16 January 2002 in appeal R 0538/2001-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
applied for:

Goods or services:

Three-dimensional trade mark in
the form of a representation of
the frustrum of a pyramid upside
down with a rectangular base area
approximately 25 cm × 8 cm and
bevelled lateral faces in the colour
gold — Application No 1408889

Goods in classes 16 and 30 (inter
alia chocolate, chocolate goods;
cardboard packaging in the form
of a gold ingot for chocolate and
chocolate goods)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1);
error of assessment and breach of
the principle of equal treatment.

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

Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).