Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:100
Date: 1998-05-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Payment of the fine
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal against penalty - inadmissible
Origin: Finland

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. The
Court may consider of its own motion whether infringement of that rule consti­
tutes an absolute bar to proceeding (see, inter alia, Case T-64/89 Automec v Com­
mission [1990] ECR II-367, paragraphs 73 and 74).
62 As the applicants have raised no plea in support of their applications for a reduc­
tion in the amount of the fine, those applications must be declared inadmissible.
63 It follows from the foregoing that the applications must be dismissed.
Costs
64 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be
ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's
pleadings. As the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay
the costs, as sought by the Commission.
II-1749
JUDGMENT OF 14. 5. 1998 —JOINED CASES T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 AND T-342/94
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby:
1) Dismisses the applications as unfounded in so far as they seek annulment of
Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard);
2) Dismisses the applications as inadmissible in so far as they seek reduction of
the fine imposed by Article 3 of that Decision;
3) Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
Vesterdorf Briet Lindh
Potocki Cooke
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 May 1998.
H. Jung
Registrar
B. Vesterdorf
President
II-1750