Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

13.7.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 169/33

2. _That suspension is subject to the following conditions: first, the_ The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not
_applicant shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First_ covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been
_Instance and at the Commission, by 5 August 2002, an_ prompted by considerations which are not germane to the
_interim report on its financial situation to 1 July 2002; second,_ matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a
_the applicant shall repay to the BvS a first instalment of the_ residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with
_contested aid in the sum of 256 000 euros by 31 December_ the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued
_2002 and shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First_ by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to
_Instance and at the Commission, within one week of making_ have proved to the administration that he has only one
_the payment, written proof of the said part repayment of the_ German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests,
_contested aid; third, the applicant shall lodge at the Registry of_ and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the adminis_the Court of First Instance and at the Commission, by_ tration to demand further proof. The administrative practice
_31 January 2003, a report on its financial situation to_ of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover,
_31 December 2002._ it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.

3. _Costs are reserved._

**Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**
**Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf**
**Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament**
**and the Commission of the European Communities** **(Case T-107/02)**

**(Case T-82/02)** (2002/C 169/60)

(2002/C 169/59) _(Language of the case: English)_

_(Language of the case: German)_
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn,
An action against the European Parliament and the Com- Inc., represented by Mr Geert Glas of Allen & Overy, Brussels
mission of the European Communities was brought before the (Belgium).
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg,
of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer, A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
with an address for service in Luxembourg. was Atofina Chemicals, Inc.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
— annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17
by way of modification to the European Parliament’s
January 2002 in case R 1003/2000-1 to the extent that
decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority
it annuls the Decision nr 2004/2000 of the Opposition
to apply to the applicant’s emoluments as a former
servant of the Communities, with effect from December Division of 7 September 2000; remit the case to the
Opposition Division for further prosecution; order each
2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany,
party to bear their own costs incurred in connection with
to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make
the appeal;
corresponding payments in future for as long as the
applicant maintains his residence in Germany. —
order the Office to pay all costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the Applicant for the Com- BetzDearborn, Inc.
European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is munity trade mark:
contesting the Parliament’s decision not to apply any weighting
to the applicant’s retirement pension since 1 December 2001 The Community trade The word mark ‘BIOMATE’ for
in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany. mark concerned: certain goods in class 1

C 169/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.2002

Proprietor of the right to Elf Atochem North America, Inc. The applicant claims that the Court should:
the trade mark or sign now called Atofina Chemicals Inc.
asserted by way of oppo- —
annul or, alternatively, substantially reduce the fine
sition in the opposition
imposed on the applicant pursuant to Commission
proceedings:
Decision C(2001)4573 final corr. of 20 December 2001
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
Trade mark or sign The national and international Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
asserted by way of oppo- figurative marks ‘Biomet’ and the E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper);
sition in the opposition national word mark ‘Biomet’ for
proceedings: certain goods in classes 1 and 5 —
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and
other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.
Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition of
sition Division: Atofina Chemicals Inc.

Decision of the Board of Partial annulment of the OppoAppeal: sition Division’s decision. _Pleas in law and main arguments_

Grounds of claim: Violation of Article 17(2) of Commission Regulation 2868/ In the contested Decision, the Commission found that the
95 ( [1] )since a translation into the applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had
language of the procedure of the infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of
evidence submitted was not filed the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agreein due time. ments and concerted practices by which they fixed price
increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and
set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the
restrictive agreements.

( [1] ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 303 of 15.12.1995, p. 1). The applicant submits that the Commission erred in respect of
each of the stages of its calculation of the applicant’s fine:

—
it imposed an amount for ‘gravity’ (EUR 70 million) that
was disproportionately high;

—
it increased this amount by 100 % for ‘deterrence’ for no
good reason;

—
it imposed a further increase of 50 % for ‘leadership’
**Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins** which was entirely disproportionate to the role played by
**Appleton Limited against the Commission of the Euro-** the applicant; and
**pean Communities**

—
it granted an insufficient reduction for cooperation.

**(Case T-118/02)**

In addition, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed
(2002/C 169/61) to take account of the economic difficulties of the carbonless
paper market as an attenuating circumstance to reduce the
level of the fine; it breached the applicant’s rights of defence;
and it made a series of mistakes of a kind that it ought not to
_(Language of the case: English)_
have made in a decision imposing a EUR 185 million fine.

The applicant submits that the combination of these errors
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- resulted in almost 60 % of the total of the fines handed down
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the being imposed on the applicant alone, which is clearly out of
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins proportion to the applicant’s market share.
Appleton Limited, represented by Mr François Brunet, Mr John
Temple Lang and Mr Jacob Grierson of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
& Hamilton, Paris (France).