CELEX: C2002/031/24
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-02 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2001 in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)

2.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 31/11
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order on 24 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                                          of 19 October 2001
1.    The application is dismissed.                                       in Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau v Commission of the
                                                                                             European Communities (1)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Action for failure to act — Communication under Article 6
                                                                          of Regulation No 2542/98 — Taking of position bringing
                                                                                 infringement to an end — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
                                                                                                     (2002/C 31/23)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau, residing in France, represented
                                                                          by M. Fauconnet, lawyer, with an address for service in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties (Agent: E. Gippini Fournier) — application for a declaration
                     of 19 September 2001                                 that the Commission refrained, contrary to the Treaty, from
                                                                          ruling on a complaint concerning alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81 EC — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  19 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                          (2002/C 31/22)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA, having its registered office in
Darmstadt, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — action                                              INSTANCE
brought against Decision R 299/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 concerning the                                     of 21 September 2001
registration of the term ‘OSTEOCALCIUM’ as a Community
trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                                      Communities
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 September
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision
                                                                                  to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                                     (2002/C 31/24)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.
                                                                          In Case T-138/01 R: F, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                          P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application           The applicant does not substantially contest the facts men-
for suspension of operation of the decision of 4 December                 tioned by the Commission in the contested decision, and the
2000 of the appointing authority concerning the reassignment              pleas in its application relate to the amount of the fine
of the applicant to the translation service — the President of            imposed.
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 21 September
2001, in which he:
                                                                          The applicant submits that the fine is unlawful, essentially
1.    Dismissed the application for interim measures;                     since it violates the duty of proportionality and of equal
                                                                          treatment. It alleges that the Commission has acted unlawfully
                                                                          and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5, 81 and 253 of the EC
2.    Reserved the costs.
                                                                          Treaty by merely determining the basic amount of the fine on
                                                                          the basis of the applicant’s world-wide turnover and not taking
                                                                          into account the scope of its activities in the EEA. The
                                                                          categorisation used by the Commission for the establishment
                                                                          of the basic amount of fine and the setting of this amount
                                                                          violate the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      violated the general principles of fairness and ‘non bis in idem’
                                                                          by not taking into account the sanctions previously imposed
                          (Case T-251/01)                                 on the applicant by the US competition authorities.
                           (2002/C 31/25)
                                                                          Finally, it alleges that, when examining possible mitigating
                                                                          circumstances, the Commission violated the principles of equal
                   (Language of the case: English)                        treatment and of proportionality by not making sufficient
                                                                          distinction between the Japanese producers, all being regarded
                                                                          as active members of the cartel. By disregarding the applicant’s
                                                                          passive role and ‘follow my leader’ approach, the Commission
                                                                          has disregarded its own Guidelines as well as the case law of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corpor-
ation, represented by Mr Koen Platteau of Linklaters & Alliance,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 18 July
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,                 Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graph-
      in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 12,2 million on the           ite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European
      applicant, or, at the least, substantially reduce this fine;                                  Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                  (Case T-252/01)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 31/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a Japanese manufacturer of graphite electrodes
and other graphite products. By the contested decision, fines
were imposed on the applicant and seven other companies for
having infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
graphite electrodes sector. The fine imposed on the applicant             European Communities on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/
was of EUR 12,2 million. Parallel proceedings relating to these           Graphite Group, Inc., represented by Mr Marc Seimetz and
agreements and practices have been undertaken in other                    Mr Jean Brücher of Brücher & Seimetz in association with
jurisdictions, e.g. in the United States.                                 Dechert, Luxembourg (Luxembourg).