Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination — Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market — Partial referral to national authorities)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, electronic component, electronics, household electrical appliance, lighting, medical device, merger control

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/33

(Agents:

L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against European Parliament
J. de Wachter and
G. Knudsen) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 refusing to consider that
the applicant’s place of residence is in Nice and apply the
weighting for France to her retirement pension from 1 January
2000 and, second, of
the Parliament of
6 December 2001 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint
— the Court of First Instance (single judge: A.W.H. Meij);
I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003 in
which it:

the decision of

1.

dismissed the application;

2.

ordered each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ No C 144 of 15.6.2002.

1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 in so
far as it applies to the applicant’s pension the weighting
applicable to Luxembourg for the whole of the year 2000.

2. Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.

( 1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 June 2003

in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central
Bank (1)

(Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank —
Written reprimand)

(2003/C 213/64)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt, member of staff of
the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer, against the
European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and T. Gilliams,
assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application for annul-
ment of the decision of 1 March 2002, taken by Mr Noyer,
Vice President of the European Central Bank, to issue a written
reprimand to the applicant — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 3 April 2003

in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Com-
mitments in the course of the first phase of examination —
Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market
— Partial referral to national authorities)

(2003/C 213/65)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-119/02, Royal Philips Electronics NV, established at
Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk
and N.G. Cronstedt, lawyers, supported by De–Longhi SpA,
established in Treviso (Italy), represented by M. Merola,
I. van Schendel, G. Crichlow and D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Superti,
K. Wiedner and J.E. Flynn), supported by SEB SA, established in
Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot and S. Hautbourg,
lawyers, and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and F. Million): Application for annulment of,
the
Commission’s decision SG(2002) D/228078 of 8 January
2002, based on Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation
No 4064/89 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area, not to oppose the concentration between SEB
and Moulinex and to declare it compatible with the common
market and with the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, subject to compliance with the proposed commitments
(Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex) and, second,
the
Commission’s decision C(2002)38, of 8 January 2002, adopted
on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89,
referring part of the examination of that concentration to the
French authorities, the Court of First Instance(Third Chamber),
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,

first,

C 213/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those

incurred by the Commission and SEB;

3. Orders De’Longhi to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 302),
concerning the revised version of the Trans-Atlantic Confer-
ence Agreement (TACA), the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
4 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 4 June 2003

of 13 May 2003

in Case T-224/99: The European Council of Transport
Users ASBL and Others v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

in Case T-97/01 DEP, Christos Gogos v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Actions for annulment — Action become devoid of purpose
— No need to adjudicate)

(2003/C 213/66)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-224/99, The European Council of Transport Users
ASBL, established in Brussels, The Freight Transport Associ-
ation, established in Tunbridge Wells (United Kingdom),
Association des Utilisateurs de Transport de Fret
(AUTF),
established in Paris, and Industrieförbundet, established in
Stockholm, represented by M. Clough QC, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by Atlantic Container
Line AB, established in Göteborg (Sweden), Hapag-Lloyd AG,
established in Hamburg (Germany), Mediterranean Shipping
Company SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), A.P. Møller-
Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen, Nippon Yusen Kaisha,
established in Tokyo (Japan), Orient Overseas Container Line
(UK) Ltd, established in London and P & O Nedlloyd Container
Line Ltd, established in London, represented by J. Pheasant and
M. Levitt, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg:
Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission,
communicated to the applicants by letter of 6 August 1999,
not to raise serious doubts, within the meaning of Article 12
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 of 19 July 1968
applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and

(Taxation of recoverable costs)

(2003/C 213/67)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case T-97/01 DEP, Christos Gogos, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
C. Tagaras, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and J. Currall) — application
for taxation of costs to be paid by the defendant to the
applicant following the order of the Court of First Instance of
21 October 2002 in Case T-97/01 Gogos v Commission (not
published in the Reports of Cases) — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 13 May 2003 the operative part of which is
as follows:

The total amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-97/
01 is fixed at EUR 11 000

(1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.01.