CELEX: C2002/131/46
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-109/02: Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

C 131/24              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-
      lation of the pension rights acquired by the applicant
      prior to his entry into service and transferred to the            Pleas in law and main arguments
      Community pension scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of
      Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                        Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        equal treatment and career progression. According to the
                                                                        applicant, his merits were not taken fully into consideration in
                                                                        the context of the 2001 promotions procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads non-compliance
with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and
infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations and of the general provisions for the implemen-             Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against
tation thereof, as well as breach of the principle of equal                      Commission of the European Communities
treatment. According to the applicant, the calculation should
have been carried out on the basis of his situation at the time                                 (Case T-109/02)
of entering the service of the Communities as a member of the
temporary staff, and not on the basis of his situation at the
time of his being appointed as an established official, some                                    (2002/C 131/46)
nine years later.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A.,
                                                                        established in Puteaux (France), represented by Robert Saint-
Action brought on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos Mavridis                    Esteben and Hugues Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-97/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2002/C 131/45)                                 —     Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of
                                                                              20 December 2001, reference COMP/E-1/36212 —
                                                                              Carbonless paper, relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                  (Language of the case: French)                              Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                              Agreement, in so far as they refer to Bolloré;
                                                                        —     In the alternative, reduce very substantially the amount
                                                                              of the fine imposed on Bolloré by Article 3 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     decision;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos
                                                                        —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Mavridis, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                The applicant contests the Commission’s decision finding that
      applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 2001                 it took part in an agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the
      promotions procedure;                                             EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/25
It seeks, first, the annulment of that decision, on the ground           The applicants claim that the Court should:
that by finding for the first time in the decision that it was
liable for having personally taken part in the cartel in question,
the Commission upheld a complaint which had not been set
out in the statement of complaints. Bolloré was in fact                  —     Set aside the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
concerned in the procedure only as the 100 % parent company                    Appeal of 16 January 2002 in appeal R 0538/2001-3;
of Copigraph, the latter being the company which, according
to the Commission, took part in the cartel. Consequently, by
finding against the applicant on the basis of a new complaint
not notified in the statement of complaints, the Commission              —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
prevented it from defending itself properly and thereby
infringed its rights of defence and right to be heard.
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of Article 81
of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement as a
result of imputing to the applicant the anti-competitive                 Pleas in law and main arguments
conduct of Copigraph. Bolloré points out that, according to
the latest case-law, the holding of 100 % of the capital of a
company does not in itself mean that the infringing conduct
of the subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company.
                                                                         Community trade mark          Three-dimensional trade mark in
                                                                         applied for:                  the form of a representation of
                                                                                                       the frustrum of a pyramid upside
                                                                                                       down with a rectangular base area
In the alternative, the applicant contests the amount of the
                                                                                                       approximately 25 cm × 8 cm and
fine imposed on it by the Commission, and seeks a very
                                                                                                       bevelled lateral faces in the colour
substantial reduction, on the ground that it infringed
                                                                                                       gold — Application No 1408889
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the principle of
proportionality.
                                                                         Goods or services:            Goods in classes 16 and 30 (inter
                                                                                                       alia chocolate, chocolate goods;
                                                                                                       cardboard packaging in the form
                                                                                                       of a gold ingot for chocolate and
                                                                                                       chocolate goods)
                                                                         Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                         before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Axions s.a. and
Christian Belce against Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
                         (Case T-110/02)
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                         (2002/C 131/47)                                                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                       error of assessment and breach of
                                                                                                       the principle of equal treatment.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
5 April 2002 by Axions S.A., of Geneva (Switzerland), and
Christian Belce, of Veyrier (Switzerland), represented by C.M.
Eckhartt, lawyer.