CELEX: C2002/003/60
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-242/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 3/34                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Trade mark or sign             Registered German trade mark              by the authorities in the USA had ended inter alia with the
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘TUFFTRIDE’ in classes 1, 7 and 11        imposition of a fine on the applicant.
sition in the opposition
proceedings:
                                                                         In response to the statement of objections the applicant stated
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the Opposition               to the defendant that it expressly did not contest the facts set
sition Division:                                                         out by the defendant. At the same time it submitted that the
                                                                         fine imposed in the USA should be credited when the
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the Appeal by the            defendant calculated the fines or at least be appropriately taken
Appeal:                        applicant                                 into account.
Grounds of claim:              Articles 8(1)(b) and 7(1)(f) of
                                                                         In the contested decision the defendant alleged that the
                               Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 (1)
                                                                         applicant had participated in a cartel and, when it calculated
                                                                         the fine, assumed that there was a world market in graphite
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          electrodes. A fine of Euro 80,2 million was imposed on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).                                applicant.
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision has a whole in law. It
                                                                         submits that the defendant did not take into account the
                                                                         fact that the applicant had already been penalised in other
                                                                         jurisdictions for the same act. In particular, it gave no credit at
                                                                         all for the fines already imposed in other States and did not
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon AG                        take account of the applicability of the rule against double
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     punishment (‘ne bis im idem’). As a separate matter, the
                                                                         defendant infringed Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of
                                                                         Regulation No 17/62 because it wrongly calculated the fine in
                         (Case T-239/01)                                 the light of the application of the guidelines on the method of
                                                                         setting fines (1) and the notice on the non-imposition or
                           (2002/C 3/59)                                 reduction of fines in cartel cases (2). It infringed central
                                                                         principles of equal treatment and proportionality and commit-
                                                                         ted errors of law and of assessment to the detriment of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                        applicant at each stage of calculating the fine. Moreover, the
                                                                         defendant misassessed inter alia the extent of the applicant’s
                                                                         cooperation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ C 9 of 14.1.1998,p. 3.
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon                     (2) OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4.
AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann,
F. Wiemer and C. Canenbley, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul decision C(2001) 1986 final of 18 July 2001;                 Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
                                                                         Zone) N.V. against the Commission of the European
—     in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the                                   Communities
      fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;
                                                                                                 (Case T-242/01)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                                                   (2002/C 3/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant manufactures various carbon and graphite
products, including graphite electrodes. In the course of a              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
procedure seeking information under Article 11 of Regulation             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
No 17/62 concerning suspected anti-competitive agreements                European Communities on 3 October 2001 by Rica Foods
between undertakings on the market for graphite electrodes,              (Free Zone) N.V., established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represent-
the applicant stated to the defendant that it was willing to             ed by G. van der Wal, with an address for service in
cooperate in the investigation of the case. A similar procedure          Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             of the OCT decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
                                                                        prove any causal link between those problems and the
                                                                        deterioration in a sector of the Community’s activity. The
(1) annul Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001;                                 applicant further claims that the importation of sugar and
                                                                        sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no impact on those
(2) declare that the Community is liable for the loss and               problems.
      damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
      that, since 19 July 2001, imports of the products referred        In addition, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
      to in Regulation No 1476/2001 have been prevented or              proportionality and infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184
      restricted on account of that regulation, and order that          of the EC Treaty. It claims that the contested regulation fails to
      the parties are to seek to reach agreement concerning the         take account of the preferential treatment afforded by those
      extent of the loss and damage suffered by the applicant           articles to the OCTs.
      and that, in the absence of agreement in that regard, the
      proceedings are to be resumed within a time-limit to be
      fixed by the Court in order for the extent of the loss and        Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers on the part of
      damage to be determined; or, at any rate, order the               the Commission and a failure to provide a statement of reasons
      Community to pay the damages provisionally estimated              for the contested regulation.
      and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the Community
      to pay such amount of damages as the Court shall deem
      fair and equitable, together with interest at the annual          (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
      rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the date of           amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
      payment in full;                                                      measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
                                                                            originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  L 195 of 19.7.2001, p. 29).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
                                                                            providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
                                                                            with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
                                                                            originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
                                                                            the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                        p. 57).
The applicant produces, in Aruba, sugar and sugar/cocoa
mixtures. Aruba forms part of the association of overseas
countries and territories (OCTs). By virtue of the cumulation
of EC/OCT and ACP/OCT originating status, the sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by the applicant have OCT                 Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer
originating status and may be imported into the EC free from            Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of
levies.                                                                                    the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-243/01)
However, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (1) amending Commission                                                (2002/C 3/61)
Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), a quota of
6 684 tonnes was introduced for mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with ACP/OCT originating status during the period from                                      (Language of the case: English)
19 July to 1 December 2001.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant pleads, first, the illegality of Regulation               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
No 1325/2001, which it is contesting in separate proceedings            European Communities on 3 October 2001 by SONY Com-
(Case T-211/01).                                                        puter Entertainment Europe Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
                                                                        ippe de Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium)
In support of its claim in the present proceedings, the applicant       The applicant claims that the Court should:
maintains that the contested regulation infringes Article 109 of
the OCT decision. According to the applicant, the Commission            —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) 1400/2001 (1) as
bases its findings concerning the adoption of the safeguard                   far as it classifies the PlayStation®2 under CN code
measures in question on incorrect facts. Thus, the serious                    9504 10 00 and the accompanying CD-ROM under CN
disturbances or difficulties in a sector of the economy of the                code 852 43 99 0;
Community cited by the Commission do not constitute serious
disturbances or difficulties within the meaning of Article 109          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.