CELEX: C2002/068/29
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-333/01: Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

C 68/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel                         Finally, given the significance of the applicant in the market,
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the multiplication factor applied as regards the amount of the
                                 ties                                    fine infringes Articles 81 and 83 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (1), inasmuch as, according
                                                                         to the applicant, the Commission may only take into account
                         (Case T-330/01)                                 the seriousness and duration of the breach and may not take
                                                                         account of the economic weight attaching to the undertaking
                                                                         concerned. Moreover, an insufficient statement of reasons has
                          (2002/C 68/28)                                 been given for that multiplication factor.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81]
                                                                             and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                             p. 87).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V., established at Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by
Martijn van Empel and Christoforus Raymundus Albertus
Swaak, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                         against Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                         of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (Case T-333/01)
(1) annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision of
      2 October 2001 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
      alternatively annul Article 3 of the decision in conjunction                                 (2002/C 68/29)
      with point 388 in the preamble thereto, by declaring void
      the multiplication factor of 2,5 in so far as this is applied                         (Language of the case: French)
      to the applicant;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer, residing in Uturoa
                                                                         (French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant is the parent company of Akzo Nobel Chemicals              The applicant claims that the Court should:
B.V., which was in turn involved, through Glucona N.V., in a
cartel relating to the sale of sodium gluconate. In the contested        —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
decision, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine pursuant to                  ties committed an administrative fault characterised by
Article 81 of the EC Treaty.                                                   serious failure to act and by the unlawful failure to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations to implement and monitor the proper
                                                                               application in French Polynesia of decisions on the
                                                                               association of the overseas countries and territories
According to the applicant, the Commission has infringed the                   (PTOMs);
principle of proportionality and Article 253 of the EC Treaty
by failing, when fixing the fine, to take sufficient account of
                                                                         —     declare that the European Commission committed an
the limited size of the product market and the significance of
                                                                               administrative fault by providing false information to the
each undertaking in that market.
                                                                               European Parliament regarding the origin of the funds
                                                                               borrowed from the SOCREDO development bank and
                                                                               the applicant’s rights under decisions on the association
The applicant further pleads infringement of Articles 81                       of the PTOMs, which have direct effect;
and 253 of the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
Commission has not shown that the applicant can be held                  —     declare that such failures have caused damage to the
liable for the offences committed by Glucona B.V. and the                      applicant which the European Council and the European
applicant’s subsidiary company.                                                Commission must make good;
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/17
—      grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       figures for its claims;
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
—      order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                   the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
                                                                                2000;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1) and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of the                   Applicant for the Com-        Chassot AG
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus                 munity trade mark:
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
                                                                          The Community trade           the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
                                                                          mark applied for:             goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)
smallholders in French Polynesia.
                                                                          Proprietor of the trade-      the applicant
( 1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
                                                                          mark right opposed in
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          the opposition proceed-
     Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).                            ings:
(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          Trade-mark right oppo-        the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
     Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).                            sed:                          VIT’ for goods in Class 31
                                                                                                        (feedingstuffs)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office                    Grounds of claim:             —     infringement of Articles 8
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                                                         and 15 of Regulation (EC)
                             and Designs)                                                                     No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                        —     misinterpretation of Arti-
                           (Case T-334/01)                                                                    cle 15 of the regulation;
                                                                                                        —     violation of the right to a fair
                            (2002/C 68/30)                                                                    hearing;
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                      —     infringement of the first and
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has                                             second       sentences        of
                                                                                                              Article 74(1) of the regu-
                         been drafted: German)
                                                                                                              lation;
                                                                                                        —     infringement of Article 73 of
                                                                                                              the regulation.
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
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen                     (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).