Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

19.1.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 17/17

of payment of this fine were specified in Article 4 of the under its principal credit facilities, its ability to pay and the
Decision. Fines and sanctions subsequent to these infringe- effect on competition in the graphite electrodes market if the
ments have been imposed upon the applicant in other states. applicant were forced into bankruptcy.

( [1] ) Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or
reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ [1996] C 207, p. 4).

The Decision was sent to the applicant by letter dated 23 July
2001 from the Commissioner responsible for competition
matters, in which further matters regarding payment, including
statements about a possible collection of the fine in case of
non-payment, were mentioned. The applicant submits that
this letter constitutes a separate decision which it contests. **Action brought on 26 September 2001 by eCopy, Inc.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**

**(Case T-247/01)**

The applicant made representations to the Commission on the
(2002/C 17/29)
subject of payment terms. The Commission replied by letter of
9 August 2001 which, according to the applicant, constitutes
a third distinct decision, of which it seeks the annulment. _(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 September 2001 by eCopy,
The applicant does not contest the findings in the first Decision Inc., represented by Mr Brian C. Read, Barrister, of 19 Old
that it committed an infringement of the EC competition rules, Buildings, London (United Kingdom)
nor does it contest that a fine should be imposed for this
infringement. It does, however, contest the imposition of a
fine on it in the above-mentioned amount. It alleges that it The applicant claims that the Court should:
should have been accorded a greater reduction of the fine for
its cooperation with the Commission under the Leniency —
annul the Board Decision of 13 July 2001;
Notice( [1] ), and that the level of the fine is unlawfully high,
having regard to the gravity and duration of the infringement, — order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
and to aggravating and attenuating circumstances and other
to grant Community trade application no. 1718667,
general factors. The Commission has also breached certain
alternatively to continue prosecution of the application
essential procedural requirements in failing properly to investiaccording to the judgment of the Court;
gate and assess the role of the former owners of the applicant
in the cartel.
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
to pay the costs of eCopy, Inc.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
Furthermore, the applicant contests the associated payment
terms and grounds and submits that Article 4 of the Decision
of 18 July 2001 and the alleged third decision of 9 August Applicant for the Com- eCopy, Inc.
2001 are void for the lack of reasoning. The applicant disputes munity trade mark:
the Commission’s position that it will seek to enforce the fine,
even if proceedings for its annulment are pending before the The Community trade The verbal mark ECOPY in respect
Court, unless a bank guarantee covering the amount of the mark concerned: of certain goods in class 9.
fine and interest is provided. It is submitted that the Commission erred when it refused to accept a lien on company Decision of the Exam- Refusal of the application
assets as security for the fine and when it refused to accept or iner:
even consider a payment schedule which did not include a
bank guarantee. Finally, the Commission erroneously refused Decision of the Board of Rejection of the Appeal
to take account of the restrictions imposed on the applicant Appeal:

C 17/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.1.2002

Grounds of claim: Incorrect interpretation of In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 ( [1] ) pleas:
and unjust refusal of evidence
filed by the Applicant after the —
infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
filing of the Application.
Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

—
disregard for the interests of the service.

—
the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
assessment.

—
breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

**Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres**
**against Commission of the European Communities**
The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
**(Case T-256/01)**
objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.
(2002/C 17/30)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the **Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —**
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn **Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the**
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan- **European Communities**
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.

**(Case T-259/01)**
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection (2002/C 17/31)
Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition _(Language of the case: Portuguese)_
COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
procedure;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi
—
order the defendant to pay the costs. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and Anto´nio Texeira de
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ Almeida, of Lisbon.

The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,

—
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
therein. yet paid for.