CELEX: C2000/135/36
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-42/00: Action brought on 28 February 2000 by City-Broker Deutschland GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

13.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — total non-access is not compatible with the principles of
                                                                             accountability, legal certainty and proportionality.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
                                                                            arrangements for private subject to excise duty and on the
                                                                            holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
The applicant states that its business has been affected by the             L 76, p. 1)
abolition, with effect from 1 July 1999, of tax- and duty-free          (2) Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
sales to travellers on intra-EU journeys. It has a vital interest in        1994, on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,
understanding the legal rules governing the tax- and duty-free              p. 58).
sales in place since 1 July 1999 and the position of tax- and
duty-free supplies to the bodies and in the circumstances
mentioned in Article 23 of Directive 92/12/EEC (1). It therefore
requested access to certain minutes of the Committee on
Excise Duties relating to discussions on some of the provisions
of that directive. By letter of 20 January 2000, the Secretary
General refused to forward, even in non-confidential form, the
minutes of the Committee relating to its non-comitology                 Action brought on 28 February 2000 by City-Broker
capacity.                                                               Deutschland GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                              in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                  (Case T-42/00)
The Commission denies access to the documents on the                                             (2000/C 135/36)
grounds of confidentiality, requested by the person that
supplied the information, and of protecting the institution’s
interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings, i.e. the                               (Language of the case: German)
discussions with the Committee. For the Commission, the
Committee has comitology and non-comitology functions; in
its comitology function, its work aims at preparing formal              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
legal acts to be adopted and published by the Commission,               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
whereas in its non-comitology function it offers a forum                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
enabling the Member States to exchange opinions and ideas,              28 February 2000 by City-Broker Deutschland GmbH, of
and the role of the Commission consists in stimulating the              Munich (Germany), represented by Gert Würtenberger,
discussion in order to reach more uniform application, but              Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Schweiger-
also, as guardian of the Treaty, in ensuring that Member States         strasse 2, Munich.
do not exceed the boundaries fixed in Community legislation.
The Commission considers that the Committee in its non-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
comitology function has no legislative role or any similar role
and therefore attributes to the exception of confidentiality the        — annul the decision adopted on 16 December 1999 by the
widest scope possible.                                                       Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered
                                                                             under number R 319/1999-3;
                                                                        — declare that the mark ‘CityBroker’, the subject of the
                                                                             application, is capable of registration;
The applicant contends that the Commission has misapplied
the rules relating to public access to Commission documents (2)         — order the Office to register the mark in the Community
(the Access Rules) on the following grounds:                                 Trade Mark Register.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— the distinction between the comitology and non-comito-
    logy functions has no validity in the case of the Access            The trade mark con-             ‘CityBroker’     —    application
    Rules;                                                              cerned:                         No 303 099
                                                                        Goods or service con-           Services in Class 35
                                                                        cerned:
— the Commission has failed in the Decision to meet the                 Decision contested be-          Refusal of registration by the
    criteria for either confidentiality exception in light of the       fore the Board of Ap-           examiner
    principles of accountability arid legal certainty;                  peal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Inadmissible use of the ‘sharing-key’ paper
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)             The applicant maintains that the use of evidence supplied
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               anonymously is generally inadmissible.
                                                                        — Inadequate statement of reasons
                                                                            The explanations in ground 68 of the contested decision,
                                                                            in particular, concerning proof of active protection of the
                                                                            home market, were contradictory and, in themselves,
                                                                            inconclusive.
Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the                       — Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC to the agreement
                    European Communities                                    with British Steel
                         (Case T-44/00)                                     This agreement was negotiated individually and contained
                                                                            no exclusive supply agreement or horizontal concertation.
                                                                            The chosen percentage link to British Steel’s total require-
                        (2000/C 135/37)
                                                                            ments and the agreed price formula were legally unobjec-
                                                                            tionable.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        — Erroneous application of the guidelines for the procedure
                                                                            in determining fines
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The determination of the fine contained an error of
European Communities on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-                         assessment, since it did not take sufficient account of the
mannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office is in Mülheim                  varying market significance of the undertakings concerned.
an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by Martin Klusmann,                      In addition, further extenuating grounds and the appli-
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                    cant’s contribution to elucidating the matter were not
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmidt, 7 Val Ste                     appropriately evaluated.
Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision K(99) 4154 endg. of
    8 December 1999, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant          Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil
    by that decision by an appropriate amount;                          National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and
                                                                        Others against the Commission of the European Com-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-45/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/38)
The applicant is a producer of seamless steel tubes. In the
contested decision, the Commission finds infringement of
Article 81(1) EC by the applicant and several other undertak-
ings. The action is based on the following grounds in particular:                           (Language of the case: French)
— Infringement of procedural rights                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    Certain parts of the investigation file were withheld from          European Communities on 29 February 2000, by the Conseil
    the applicant, contrary to the provisions on access to              National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.), whose
    Commission documents.                                               registered office is in Suresnes, France, the Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériels de
— Infringement of rights of the defence                                 Bâtiment-Travaux Publics et de Manutention (D.L.R.), whose
                                                                        registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto Contrôle
    Because of the short deadlines for replying to the heads of         31 and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered office is in Toulouse,
    complaint, the applicant did not have sufficient oppor-             France, Marc Foucher-Créteau, resident in Paris, and Verdier
    tunity to defend itself. Moreover, the in its final decision,       Distribition SARL, whose registered office is in Juvignac,
    the Commission diverged from essential accusations in the           France, represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar,
    heads of complaint without giving the applicant the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    opportunity to amend its position.                                  François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.