Case T-42/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rhiannon Williams against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), genetically modified organism, provision of documents, research staff, student

C 93/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1998 (2), following the early termination of the infringement as
soon as the Commission began the investigation.

— declare Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the contested decision null

and void to the extent that they refer to Dimon Inc.;

— in second order, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
Agroexpansion S.A. and on a joint and severally basis to
Dimon Inc.;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20
October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC
(Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw tobacco Spain). The applicant
claims that it is not the correct addressee of the decision.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) of Regulation No
1/2003 (1) and of the principle of proportionality. According to
the applicant, the Commission made a manifest error in finding
that the applicant exercised a decisive influence over Agroex-
pansion during the infringement period and has therefore
incorrectly addressed the decision to the applicant and has
exceeded the maximum limit for the amount of the fine that
can be imposed on Agroexpansion, since the Commission has
taken into consideration the Dimon's group turnover for calcu-
lating the maximum ceiling of the fine.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the ruleson competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

(2) 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 C 9, p. 3)

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rhiannon Williams
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-42/05)

(2005/C 93/65)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Rhiannon
Williams, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S.
Crosby and C. Bryant Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November
2004 to refuse to give access to the documents which,
although not identified in the contested decision, must be
presumed to exist;

The applicant furthermore submits a violation of the principle
of proportionality and liability to the extent that the applicant
has been held liable for a single and complex long term cartel
agreement carried out by Agroexpansion of which the appli-
cant was not informed.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November
2004 to refuse to give access to all or any of documents 9,
16, 17, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 46, as identified in the
contested decision;

The applicant also submits a violation of
the principle of
proportionality and liability and of Article 23(2) of Regulation
No 1/2003. According to the applicant,
it should not have
been held liable for the infringements that occurred before
Agroexpansion became part of the Dimon group.

Finally, the applicant submits a violation of the principle of
legitimate expectations in the application of a mitigating factor,
the Commission's Guidelines of
pursuant

to Section 3 of

— order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a doctoral research fellow and is carrying out a
project on the impact of globalisation on Community environ-
ment and development cooperation law and policy. For this,
the applicant has asked for access to documents in order to
review the background to recent legislation about genetically
modified organisms (GMO). Following the request of the appli-
cant, access to only part of the documents was granted.

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/35

In support of her application, the applicant submits an infringe-
ment of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and a failure
to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC. According
to the applicant, the Commission has given an incomplete
reply to the request for access and did not identify all the docu-
ments included within its scope. The applicant claims that
other documents exist, for which no reasons for refusal of
access have been given and no exceptions have been invoked.

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in law and misapplied the exception under the second para-
graph of Article 4(3) and the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of
Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant also submits that the
Commission failed to state reasons and erred in considering
that disclosure would seriously undermine the decision making
process, that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure
of the documents and that the documents in question would
weaken the Commission's position before the WTO panel on
the de facto moratorium on the approval and marketing of
biotech products.

The applicant also submits an infringement of the principle of
proportionality and a failure to state reasons in not considering
partial access to the documents.

Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31
January 2005 by Micronas GmbH, Freiburg i.Br., Germany,
represented by G. Herr, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 12
November 2004 (Decision R 366/2004-2-3D-Panorama)
refusing to register
the Community trade mark ‘3D-
Panorama’ for Class 9 ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits,
and in particular semiconductor chips’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Micronas GmbH.

The word mark ‘3D Panorama’ for
Class 9 goods (consumer electro-
in particular TV sets, video
nics,
recorders,
electronic
radios,
circuits, integrated circuits, and in
particular
chips;
software) — Registration No
2871218.

semiconductor

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).

Community trade mark
sought:

the exam-
contested before

Decision of
iner
the Board of Appeal:

Refusal to register the mark for all
of the goods applied for.

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Micronas GmbH
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

(Case T-45/05)

(2005/C 93/66)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

The contested decision infringes
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94, because as
far as
inte-
‘electronic circuits,
grated circuits, and in particular
semiconductor
are
concerned, the word combination
3D-Panorama
consists
exclusively of signs or indications
nor is devoid of distinctive char-
acter.

neither

chips’