Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

22.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 369/13

**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST** _Pleas in law and main arguments_
**INSTANCE**

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
**of 9 August 2001**
in Case T-216/01 (ReiseBank AG v Commission, not yet
published).
**in Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola v European Invest-**
**ment Bank**

_**(Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties —**_
_**Fumus boni juris — Urgency — None)**_

(2001/C 369/20)
**Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Univer-**
**sal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
_(Language of the case: Italian)_ **Market**

**(Case T-237/01)**
In Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola, residing in Rome,
represented by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment
(2001/C 369/22)
Bank (Agents: C. Go´mez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —
application for suspension of the operation of a number of
measures adopted by the EIB concerning the applicant — the _(Language of the case: English)_
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
9 August 2001, in which he:

1. _Dismissed the application for interim relief;_ An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2. _Ordered that the costs be reserved._ European Communities on 18 September 2001 by Alcon
Universal Ltd, represented by Hamish Porter of Theodore
Goddard, London (United Kingdom).

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.

**Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commerz-**
**bank AG against the Commission of the European Com-**
**munities** The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
.annul the decision of 18 July 2001 of the Board of
**(Case T-219/01)**
Appeal in case R0273/2000-1 and require the Office to
refuse the cancellation of the Community trade mark.
(2001/C 369/21)

—
order the Office to pay the costs.
_(Language of the case: German)_

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Commerzbank AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
Proprietor of the Com- Alcon Universal Ltd.
H. Satzky and B. Maassen, Rechtsanwälte.
munity trade mark:

The applicant claims that the Court should: The Community trade word mark ‘BSS’ for certain goods
mark concerned: in class 5 (registration n [o] 90134)

—
annul the Commission Decision of 17 August 2001 in
Case COMP/E-1/37.919 addressed to the applicant relat- Applicant for the declar- Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
ing to the refusal of a supplementary request to see ation for invalidity:
documents;
Decision of the Cancel- Invalidity of the Community trade
— order the Commission to pay the costs. lation Division: mark

C 369/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22.12.2001

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the Appeal intro- — It submits that the Commission has assessed the gravity
Appeal: duced by Alcon Universal Ltd. of the infringement, as it is required to do so under
Article 12(2) of Council Regulation No 3975/87( [1] ),
Grounds of claim: Failure by the Board of Appeal to incorrectly and that the categorisation of the infringement
recognise the actions undertaken under the Commission Guidelines on Fines( [2] ) as ‘very
by Alcon Universal Ltd. to restrain serious’ rather than ‘serious’ is therefore incorrect.
the use of the trade mark by other Although the nature of the infringement as ‘market
parties. sharing’ is not disputed the Commission’s assessment of
the actual impact and the geographic scope of that impact
are contested. The Commission’s calculation and use of
the term ‘affected turnover’ is also disputed.

—
It argues that the Commission has not proved that the
infringement covered the period from 5 September 1989
until 15 February 2001.
**Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia**
**Airlines System AB against the Commission of the Euro-**

—
**pean Communities** In relation to co-operation and leniency, it maintains that
a number of factors that should have been taken into
consideration by the Commission have either not been
**(Case T-241/01)**
considered in the Decision or, if they have been considered, the Commission’s assessment is incorrect.
(2001/C 369/23)

_(Language of the case: English)_
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987
laying downthe procedure for the application of the rules on
competition to undertaking in the air transport sector (OJ L 374,
p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi( [2] ) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavian Treaty (OJ C9 1998, p. 3).
Airlines System AB, represented by Mr Morten Kofmann of
Kromann Reumert, Copenhagen (Denmark).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
judicially review the calculation of the fine imposed on
the applicant by the Commission.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
**Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard**
**against Commission of the European Communities**
The subject of the application is the Commission Decision
C(2001) 1987 final of 18 July 2001, relating to proceedings
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty ant Article 53 of the **(Case T-258/01)**
Agreement on the European Economic Area (case COMP.D.2.
37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and case COMP.D.2 37.386 —
Sun-Air vs. SAS and Maersk Air). In this Decision the (2001/C 369/24)
Commission states that the applicant and Maesk Air A/S have
infringed the competition rules by agreeing to share markets
between them by Maersk Air withdrawing from the Copenha- _(Language of the case: French)_
gen-Stockholm route and the applicant withdrawing from
the Copenhangen-Venice and Billund-Frankfurt routes, thus
leaving operation exclusively to the other party.

The applicant does not object to the Commission’s finding An action against the Commission of the European Communithat it has infringed the competition rules. It merely exercises ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
its right to subject the Commission’s calculation of the fine to European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveiljudicial review. lard, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.