CELEX: C2002/056/28
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-310/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

2.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 56/15
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider                           In support of its application, the applicant pleads, first, various
Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European                      infringements of the procedural rules. Thus, the Commission
                           Communities                                    extended the time-limit within which it was required to
                                                                          adopt the decision, in breach of Article 10 of Regulation
                                                                          No 4064/89 (1). Nor did the decision extending that time-limit
                         (Case T-310/01)                                  indicate the reasons for it or the conduct on the part of the
                                                                          applicant which caused it to be extended.
                          (2002/C 56/28)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Further, the applicant complains of a violation of its rights of
                                                                          defence. First, the statement of objections does not tally with
                                                                          the final decision. Second, the access to the file was irregular
                                                                          and the Commission did not communicate all the facts relied
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 on in the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Schneider
Electric S.A., established at Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
resented by Francis Herbert, Jacques Steenbergen and Marc
Pittie, lawyers.                                                          Next, according to the applicant, the hearing officer did not
                                                                          faithfully reproduce the applicant’s objection. Moreover, the
                                                                          hearing officer did not comply with his duty to be objective.
                                                                          Thus, there has been an infringement of the applicant’s rights
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               of defence and of the Commission’s decision on the terms of
                                                                          reference of hearing officers (2).
—     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
      European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring a
      concentration to be incompatible with the common
      market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand), by
      finding that Article 10(5) of Council Regulation                    Lastly, the applicant complains of violation of the principles
      No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                    of sound administration, of the protection of legitimate
      concentrations between undertakings is not applicable to            expectations and of collegiate responsibility within the Com-
      the present case;                                                   mission, and of infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty.
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
      the European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring
      a concentration to be incompatible with the common                  Second, the applicant pleads several infringements of Article 2
      market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand);                      of Regulation No 4064/89 and infringement of Article 253 of
                                                                          the EC Treaty as regards the methodology applied by the
                                                                          Commission and its analysis of the national markets.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Thus, the Commission takes the national markets as its
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           reference framework but goes on to make a global assessment
                                                                          of the effects of the concentration, without providing any
                                                                          statement of reasons and in breach of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                          No 4064/89. Moreover, according to the applicant, its analysis
The applicant is the parent company of a group engaged in
                                                                          of the various national markets also infringes Article 2 of
the manufacture and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                          Regulation No 4064/89 and is not supported by an adequate
sectors of electrical installations, industrial control and auto-
                                                                          statement of reasons. The applicant maintains that the analysis
mation. On 16 February 2001 it formally notified the Com-
                                                                          is erroneous in stating that the concentration created a
mission of the merger which it was planning with Legrand, the
                                                                          dominant position.
parent company of a group engaged in the manufacture and
sale of electrical low voltage switchgear equipment.
The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar-            Third, the applicant advances various pleas concerning the
ing that concentration to be incompatible with the common                 assessment and the way in which the applicant’s proposals for
market and the EEA Agreement.                                             the giving of undertakings are presented.
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
Thus, it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an                     Applicant for the Com-         TRUCCO S.p.A.
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-                 munity trade mark:
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.                                                            The Community trade            the pictorial mark registered by
                                                                             mark applied for:              the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
                                                                                                            Class      9    —       Application
In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission                                                     No 1043090
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point, in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation                       Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the                       mark right opposed in
principle of proportionality.                                                the opposition proceed-
                                                                             ings:
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on               Trade-mark           right     the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of          opposed:                       No 16147)
    30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
    in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).                                                Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
    the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
                                                                             sition Division:
    proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
    number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).                     Decision of the Board of       rejection of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                                                                             Grounds of claim:              —     risk of confusion between
                                                                                                                  the two marks;
                                                                                                            —     infringement of Article 74(1)
                                                                                                                  of      Regulation       (EC)
Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions                                                                No 40/94 (1).
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                          (Case T-311/01)
                           (2002/C 56/29)
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                        been drafted: German)
                                                                             Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
                                                                             Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                      Commission of the European Communities
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                                                (Case T-315/01)
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the                                            (2002/C 56/30)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in               Commission of the European Communities was brought
      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade                   on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
      mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;                                             by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
                                                                             Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                     Partners), of London (United Kingdom).