Case T-70/02: Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and the Council for the European Union
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), agricultural production, dangerous substance, health risk, pharmaceutical product, water pollution

C 144/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

the applicant is the result of numerous errors on the part of
the defendant concerning the determination and assessment
of the facts for the purposes of calculating the fine. In addition,
the defendant infringed numerous fundamental principles of
Community law.

that

claims

applicant

the Guidelines (1)

The
infringe
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. Its complaint basically
concerns the flat-rate determination of the amount of fines
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines.
In the
applicant’s view, the amount of fines should be calculated only
in proportion to turnover, and the flat-rate determination
provided for in the Guidelines in respect of smaller undertak-
ings chiefly results in fines which are unreasonable and
disproportionate. Consequently, Article 3(b) of the contested
decision is likewise unlawful.

In addition, the applicant maintains that, even assuming that
the Guidelines are lawful, the defendant misapplied them. In
particular, the defendant misjudged the constituent element of
the contravention which is the seriousness of the act. It should
have had regard to the fact that the contravention was only
moderately serious and had little effect on the market, and to
the fact that the undertakings concerned did not adhere to the
price agreements. The fact that only a very small proportion of
the applicant’s total turnover was affected by the contravention
constitutes an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation
No 17/62, and, in addition, the limited economic efficiency of
the applicant was wrongly left out of account.

The applicant argues that, in any event, the amount of the fine
is contrary to the general principles of proportionality and
reasonableness, and that the failure to take into account the
small product turnover of the applicant as compared with the
total turnover resulted in an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment. Quite different fines were imposed on
undertakings having a totally similar strength in the market.

Lastly, the applicant maintains that the calculation of the
penalty by the defendant infringes Article 7 of the ECHR,
inasmuch as the financial penalty imposed on the applicant
reflects a range of penalisation which has twice been decisively
extended since the termination of the contravention. The
systematic alteration of the practice followed by the defendant,
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines and the
change in the method of determining fines at the end of 2001,
constitutes an extension of the range of penalisation which
cannot be applied to conduct which occurred before that
extension took place.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe
Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and
the Council for the European Union

(Case T-70/02)

(2002/C 144/101)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2002 by
Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V., represented by Mr Koen Van
Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP,
Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the partial annulment of Decision 2455/2001/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council dated
20 November 2001 establishing a list of priority sub-
stances in the field of water policy and amending Directive
2000/60/EC, so as to remove diuron and isoproturon
from the measure;

— order the Defendants to pay all costs and expenses in

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
products’ active substances, diuron and isoproturon, in the list
of priority substances in the field of water policy. This list is
established by the defendants in execution of Directive 2000/
60/EC (1). The products listed are considered to present a risk
to or via the aquatic environment and their emissions must be
reduced. Furthermore, the contested decision indicates some
of
the applicant’s products as priority substances ’under
lead, according to the applicant, to a
review’, which will
classification as priority hazardous substances. These substanc-
es pose a higher risk for the aquatic environment and their
emissions must be eliminated.

The applicant objects to the procedure and the methodology
used by the defendants when adopting the contested Decision.
To establish the contested list, the defendants used a summary
procedure as laid down in Article 16 (2), second paragraph, of
Directive 2000/60.

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/51

The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are
largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW Agro-
Sciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and
Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).

written reprimands within the meaning of Article 43(i) of the
Conditions of Employment by a valid decision of the Executive
Board.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
22.12.2000, p. 1)

Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald
Voigt against the European Central Bank

(Case T-78/02)

(2002/C 144/102)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald Voigt, residing in
Langenselbold (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the written reprimand issued to the applicant by
the defendant pursuant to Article 43(i) of the Conditions
of Employment by letter of 1 March 2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant claims that the
written reprimand is invalid on the ground that general
procedural principles were not respected. The reprimand is
based on incorrect assumptions and the applicant was, inter
alia, not granted an adequate hearing in the procedure.
Moreover, the defendant’s conduct infringes European data-
protection rules.

The applicant also disputes that the Vice-President of the
defendant had been granted the general authority to decide on

Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-85/02)

(2002/C 144/103)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
of Carretera de Cartagena-La Palma, Km 2,4, Cartagena (Spain),
represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 16 January 2002 of the Third Board
of Appeal rejecting application number 199 265 for
registration of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to
describe ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29;

— declare that application number 199 265 for registration
of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to describe
‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29 should be allowed;

— order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-

vener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark

Pedro Diaz S.A.

Community trade mark
applied for Word mark:

CASTILLO — application no 199
265 for products falling within
Classes 29 and 30

Proprietor of the trade
mark or sign invoked in
the
pro-
opposition
cedure:

Granja Castello S.A.

Trade mark or sign being Word mark with graphic elements
‘EL CASTILLO’
registered for
opposed:
products in Class 29 and word
mark with graphic elements ‘EL
CASTILLO NADO 1’ for products
in Class 30