Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:96
Date: 1998-05-14
Language of the case: English
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: Statement of reasons;Determining the amount of the fine;Definition of undertaking;Agreements of undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible;Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary publication, and Case T-151/89 Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés v Commission [1995] ECR II-1191, summary publication) that this Court stressed for the first time that it is desirable for undertakings to be able to ascertain in detail the method used for calculating the fine imposed without having to bring court proceedings against the Commission's decision in order to do so. 206. It follows that, when it finds in a decision that there has been an infringement of the competition rules and imposes fines on the undertakings participating in it, the Commission must, if it systematically took into account certain basic factors in order to fix the amount of fines, set out those factors in the body of the decision in order to enable the addressees of the decision to verify that the level of the fine is correct and to assess whether there has been any discrimination. 207. In the specific circumstances set out in paragraph 205 above, and having regard to the fact that in the procedure before the Court the Commission showed itself to be willing to supply any relevant information relating to the method of calculating the fines, the absence of specific grounds in the Decision regarding the method of calculation of the fines should not, in the present case, be regarded as constituting an infringement of the duty to state reasons such as would justify annulment in whole or in part of the fines imposed. 208. This plea cannot therefore be upheld. 209. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the application must be dismissed. Costs 210. 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. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs, as sought by the Commission. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby: 1. Dismisses the application; 2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs. Vesterdorf Briët Lindh Potocki Cooke Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 May 1998. H. Jung B. Vesterdorf Registrar President Summary Facts II - 2 Procedure II - 6 Forms of order sought II - 7 Admissibility of certain pleas II - 8 Substance II - 9 The application for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of the Decision II - 9 A — The plea that SCA Holding is not the correct addressee of the Decision II - 9 Arguments of the parties II - 9 Findings of the Court II - 12 B — The plea alleging an inadequate or erroneous statement of reasons regarding the designation of Reed P&B as the undertaking concerned and SCA Holding as the addressee of the Decision II - 13 Arguments of the parties II - 13 Findings of the Court II - 15 C — The plea that there is an error regarding the duration of the infringement II - 16 Arguments of the parties II - 16 Findings of the Court II - 17 The application for annulment or reduction of the fine II - 18 A — The plea that the Commission wrongly failed to take into consideration several special circumstances II - 18 Colthrop made up only a tiny part of the Reedpack businesses acquired by the SCA group and was not actually integrated into the SCA group II - 18 The SCA group's lack of involvement in the management of Colthrop and in the alleged infringements II - 19 The infringement committed by Colthrop ceased in November 1990 II - 19 The SCA group applies a strict policy of avoiding infringements of competition law II - 20 The complaint that no account was taken of the fact that Colthrop was only a very minor member of the PG Paperboard II - 20 — Arguments of the parties II - 20 — Findings of the Court II - 22 The complaint that no account was taken of the fact that Colthrop's prices did not correspond to the cartel's announced prices II - 23 — Arguments of the parties II - 24 — Findings of the Court II - 24 B — The plea that the Commission did not apply to SCA Holding/Colthrop the criteria adopted for calculating the fines, or that it did so in a discriminatory manner II - 26 Arguments of the parties II - 26 Findings of the Court II - 26 C — The plea that the fine imposed on the applicant is unreasonably high in absolute terms and disproportionate in relation to the applicant's innocence and to the objectives of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 II - 28 Arguments of the parties II - 28 Findings of the Court II - 30 D — The plea that the imposition of a fine on the applicant infringes Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, Article 6(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, and the fundamental principle of fairness II - 32 E — The plea that the obligation to state reasons for the fines was infringed II - 33 Arguments of the parties II - 33 Findings of the Court II - 33 Costs II - 36 1: Language of the case: English. ECR