CELEX: C2002/003/59
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-239/01: Action brought on 2 October 2001 by SGL Carbon AG 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.