CELEX: C2002/144/101
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-70/02: Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and the Council for the European Union

C 144/50               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
the applicant is the result of numerous errors on the part of           Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe
the defendant concerning the determination and assessment               Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and
of the facts for the purposes of calculating the fine. In addition,                  the Council for the European Union
the defendant infringed numerous fundamental principles of
Community law.
                                                                                                   (Case T-70/02)
The applicant claims that the Guidelines (1) infringe                                            (2002/C 144/101)
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. Its complaint basically
concerns the flat-rate determination of the amount of fines
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines. In the                                  (Language of the case: English)
applicant’s view, the amount of fines should be calculated only
in proportion to turnover, and the flat-rate determination
provided for in the Guidelines in respect of smaller undertak-
ings chiefly results in fines which are unreasonable and
disproportionate. Consequently, Article 3(b) of the contested           An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
decision is likewise unlawful.                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2002 by
                                                                        Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V., represented by Mr Koen Van
                                                                        Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP,
In addition, the applicant maintains that, even assuming that           Brussels (Belgium).
the Guidelines are lawful, the defendant misapplied them. In
particular, the defendant misjudged the constituent element of
the contravention which is the seriousness of the act. It should
have had regard to the fact that the contravention was only             The applicant claims that the Court should:
moderately serious and had little effect on the market, and to
the fact that the undertakings concerned did not adhere to the
                                                                        —     order the partial annulment of Decision 2455/2001/EC
price agreements. The fact that only a very small proportion of
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council dated
the applicant’s total turnover was affected by the contravention
                                                                              20 November 2001 establishing a list of priority sub-
constitutes an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation
                                                                              stances in the field of water policy and amending Directive
No 17/62, and, in addition, the limited economic efficiency of
                                                                              2000/60/EC, so as to remove diuron and isoproturon
the applicant was wrongly left out of account.
                                                                              from the measure;
                                                                        —     order the Defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
The applicant argues that, in any event, the amount of the fine
                                                                              these proceedings.
is contrary to the general principles of proportionality and
reasonableness, and that the failure to take into account the
small product turnover of the applicant as compared with the
total turnover resulted in an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment. Quite different fines were imposed on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
undertakings having a totally similar strength in the market.
                                                                        The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
Lastly, the applicant maintains that the calculation of the
                                                                        products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
penalty by the defendant infringes Article 7 of the ECHR,
                                                                        products’ active substances, diuron and isoproturon, in the list
inasmuch as the financial penalty imposed on the applicant
                                                                        of priority substances in the field of water policy. This list is
reflects a range of penalisation which has twice been decisively
                                                                        established by the defendants in execution of Directive 2000/
extended since the termination of the contravention. The
                                                                        60/EC (1). The products listed are considered to present a risk
systematic alteration of the practice followed by the defendant,
                                                                        to or via the aquatic environment and their emissions must be
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines and the
                                                                        reduced. Furthermore, the contested decision indicates some
change in the method of determining fines at the end of 2001,
                                                                        of the applicant’s products as priority substances ’under
constitutes an extension of the range of penalisation which
                                                                        review’, which will lead, according to the applicant, to a
cannot be applied to conduct which occurred before that
                                                                        classification as priority hazardous substances. These substanc-
extension took place.
                                                                        es pose a higher risk for the aquatic environment and their
                                                                        emissions must be eliminated.
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC     The applicant objects to the procedure and the methodology
    Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
                                                                        used by the defendants when adopting the contested Decision.
                                                                        To establish the contested list, the defendants used a summary
                                                                        procedure as laid down in Article 16 (2), second paragraph, of
                                                                        Directive 2000/60.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/51
The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are                 written reprimands within the meaning of Article 43(i) of the
largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW Agro-              Conditions of Employment by a valid decision of the Executive
Sciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and               Board.
Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).
(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
    Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
    22.12.2000, p. 1)                                                   Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
                                                                        against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                                       Market
                                                                                                   (Case T-85/02)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 144/103)
Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
           Voigt against the European Central Bank
                         (Case T-78/02)                                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
                       (2002/C 144/102)                                 of Carretera de Cartagena-La Palma, Km 2,4, Cartagena (Spain),
                                                                        represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of 16 January 2002 of the Third Board
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                       of Appeal rejecting application number 199 265 for
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                registration of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to
on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald Voigt, residing in                         describe ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29;
Langenselbold (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
                                                                        —     declare that application number 199 265 for registration
                                                                              of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to describe
                                                                              ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29 should be allowed;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
—     annul the written reprimand issued to the applicant by                  vener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      the defendant pursuant to Article 43(i) of the Conditions
      of Employment by letter of 1 March 2002;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-          Pedro Diaz S.A.
                                                                        munity trade mark
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Community trade mark            CASTILLO — application no 199
                                                                        applied for Word mark:          265 for products falling within
                                                                                                        Classes 29 and 30
In support of his application, the applicant claims that the            Proprietor of the trade         Granja Castello S.A.
written reprimand is invalid on the ground that general                 mark or sign invoked in
procedural principles were not respected. The reprimand is              the opposition pro-
based on incorrect assumptions and the applicant was, inter             cedure:
alia, not granted an adequate hearing in the procedure.
Moreover, the defendant’s conduct infringes European data-              Trade mark or sign being        Word mark with graphic elements
protection rules.                                                       opposed:                        ‘EL CASTILLO’ registered for
                                                                                                        products in Class 29 and word
                                                                                                        mark with graphic elements ‘EL
The applicant also disputes that the Vice-President of the                                              CASTILLO NADO 1’ for products
defendant had been granted the general authority to decide on                                           in Class 30