Case T-39/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, fine, infringement of EU law, liability, tobacco industry

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/35

Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Honig Verband v
Commission

(Case T-35/06)

(2006/C 86/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Honig Verband e. V.
sented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

(Hamburg, Germany)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14
November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation
(EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the
‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 (1),
under which the designation of origin ‘Miel de Provence’
is
registered as a protected geographical
indication (PGI) in the
annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2). Prior to the enact-
ment of Regulation No 1854/2005 the applicant challenged
the application for registration of the designation ‘Miel de Prov-
ence’ before the competent German authority.

In support of its action the applicant submits three pleas in
law.

that

first,

submits,

It
the contested regulation should be
annulled since it is contrary to the special and conclusive rules
on the designation of origin for honey contained in Directive
2001/110/EC (3).
regulation
constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the free movement
of goods in terms of Article 28 EC.

the defendant's

Furthermore,

Second, in support of its action the applicant submits that the
contested regulation is incompatible with the requirements of
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (4). In that regard, it claims that
Article 2, Article 4 and the second indent of Article 7(4) of
Regulation No 2081/92 have been infringed.

defendant did not deal
concerning the economic effect on an existing designation.

adequately with the

argument

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005
supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as
regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designa-
tions of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Prov-
ence) (PGI).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 of 17 December 1996 on
the entry of certain names in the ‘Register of protected designation
of origin and protected geographical
indications’ provided for in
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geogra-
phical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs.

(3) Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to

honey.

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs.

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-39/06)

(2006/C 86/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Transcatab S.p.A.
Italy)
(represented by: Cristoforo Osti and Alessandra Prastaro, avvo-
cati)

in Liquidation (Caserta,

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— Annul in part Article 1.1 of Commission Decision C (2005)
4012 def. of 20 October 2005, in which it found that SCC
(and therefore Alliance One) should be held to be jointly
liable for the infringements of Article 81 committed by
Transcatab;

— Consequently reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

Finally, the applicant alleges that Regulation No 1854/2005
was enacted pursuant to a legally incorrect procedure. The

— Order the Commission to pay the costs in full, including

those of Transcatab.

C 86/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is the subject of the present action is the
same as that in Case T-11/06 Tabacchi v Commission. As regards
the applicant, the decision holds the company Alliance One
International
jointly liable in its capacity as the ultimate
holding company TRANSCATAB.

In support of
Commission:

its claims,

the applicant

submits that

the

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v
European Parliament

(Case T-42/06)

(2006/C 86/73)

Language of the case: French

— erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for
the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant
infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof,
failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance
One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of
10 % of turnover.

Parties

Applicant(s): Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France)
by: W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

(represented

— Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very
serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually
non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market,
the downstream market and consumers, as well as the
limited size of the relevant geographical market.

Defendant(s): European Parliament

— Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in
fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million.

Form of order sought

— Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to
1998 from that of the following period and considered
TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by
holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999
the Commission infringed the principle of
to 2002,
equality,
in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating
circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal
context was confused but did not apply the same finding to
the processors.

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of 13

December 2005 to adopt Report No A6-0376/2005,

— award Mr Gollnisch the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensa-

tion for non-material damage,

— further, award the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 by way
of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this
action.

— infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised
TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capa-
city as members of the Associazione professionale Trasfor-
matori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Erred in failing to apply any of the attenuating circum-
stances cited by the applicant, such as its cooperation, the
failure to perform the agreements, the interruption of those
agreements or the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the
nature of the infringing conduct.

By this action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parlia-
ment, seeks the annulment of the decision made by the Parlia-
ment in plenary sitting on 13 December 2005 to adopt the
report of the Committee on Legal Affairs No A6-0376/2005
concerning remarks the applicant made at a press conference
and consequently not to defend his immunity and privileges.
He also seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
as a result of the contested decision.