You are on page 1of 2

C 93/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.4.

2005

The applicant claims that the Court should: 1998 (2), following the early termination of the infringement as
soon as the Commission began the investigation.

— declare Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the contested decision null


and void to the extent that they refer to Dimon Inc.; (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the ruleson competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
— in second order, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
Treaty (OJ C 9, p. 3)
Agroexpansion S.A. and on a joint and severally basis to
Dimon Inc.;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rhiannon Williams


against the Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments


(Case T-42/05)

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 (2005/C 93/65)


October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC
(Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw tobacco Spain). The applicant
claims that it is not the correct addressee of the decision. (Language of the case: English)

In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe-


ment of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) of Regulation No An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
1/2003 (1) and of the principle of proportionality. According to nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the applicant, the Commission made a manifest error in finding European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Rhiannon
that the applicant exercised a decisive influence over Agroex- Williams, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S.
pansion during the infringement period and has therefore Crosby and C. Bryant Solicitors.
incorrectly addressed the decision to the applicant and has
exceeded the maximum limit for the amount of the fine that The applicant claims that the Court should:
can be imposed on Agroexpansion, since the Commission has
taken into consideration the Dimon's group turnover for calcu-
lating the maximum ceiling of the fine. — annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November
2004 to refuse to give access to the documents which,
although not identified in the contested decision, must be
presumed to exist;

The applicant furthermore submits a violation of the principle


— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November
of proportionality and liability to the extent that the applicant
2004 to refuse to give access to all or any of documents 9,
has been held liable for a single and complex long term cartel
16, 17, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 46, as identified in the
agreement carried out by Agroexpansion of which the appli-
contested decision;
cant was not informed.

— order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

The applicant also submits a violation of the principle of


proportionality and liability and of Article 23(2) of Regulation
Pleas in law and main arguments
No 1/2003. According to the applicant, it should not have
been held liable for the infringements that occurred before
Agroexpansion became part of the Dimon group.
The applicant is a doctoral research fellow and is carrying out a
project on the impact of globalisation on Community environ-
ment and development cooperation law and policy. For this,
the applicant has asked for access to documents in order to
Finally, the applicant submits a violation of the principle of review the background to recent legislation about genetically
legitimate expectations in the application of a mitigating factor, modified organisms (GMO). Following the request of the appli-
pursuant to Section 3 of the Commission's Guidelines of cant, access to only part of the documents was granted.
16.4.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/35

In support of her application, the applicant submits an infringe- Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31
ment of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and a failure January 2005 by Micronas GmbH, Freiburg i.Br., Germany,
to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC. According represented by G. Herr, lawyer.
to the applicant, the Commission has given an incomplete
reply to the request for access and did not identify all the docu-
ments included within its scope. The applicant claims that The applicant claims that the Court should:
other documents exist, for which no reasons for refusal of
access have been given and no exceptions have been invoked.
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 12
November 2004 (Decision R 366/2004-2-3D-Panorama)
refusing to register the Community trade mark ‘3D-
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred Panorama’ for Class 9 ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits,
in law and misapplied the exception under the second para- and in particular semiconductor chips’;
graph of Article 4(3) and the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of
Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant also submits that the
Commission failed to state reasons and erred in considering
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
that disclosure would seriously undermine the decision making
process, that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure
of the documents and that the documents in question would
weaken the Commission's position before the WTO panel on
the de facto moratorium on the approval and marketing of
biotech products. Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant also submits an infringement of the principle of


proportionality and a failure to state reasons in not considering Applicant for Com- Micronas GmbH.
partial access to the documents. munity trade mark:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of Community trade mark The word mark ‘3D Panorama’ for
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43). sought: Class 9 goods (consumer electro-
nics, in particular TV sets, video
recorders, radios, electronic
circuits, integrated circuits, and in
particular semiconductor chips;
software) — Registration No
2871218.

Decision of the exam- Refusal to register the mark for all


iner contested before of the goods applied for.
the Board of Appeal:

Decision of the Board Dismissal of the appeal.


Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Micronas GmbH of Appeal:
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
(Case T-45/05) lation (EC) No 40/94, because as
far as ‘electronic circuits, inte-
grated circuits, and in particular
semiconductor chips’ are
(2005/C 93/66) concerned, the word combination
3D-Panorama neither consists
exclusively of signs or indications
(Language of the case: German) nor is devoid of distinctive char-
acter.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal


Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the