Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:95
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
Procedure: Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: Sweden

summary publication, and CaseT-151/89 Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés v Commission [1995] ECR II-1191,summary publication) that the Court stressed for the first time that it is desirablefor undertakings to be able to ascertain in detail the method used for calculatingthe fine imposed without having to bring court proceedings against theCommission's decision in order to do so. 131. It follows that, when it finds in a decision that there has been an infringement ofthe competition rules and imposes fines on the undertakings participating in it, theCommission must, if it systematically took into account certain basic factors inorder to fix the amount of fines, set out those factors in the body of the decisionin order to enable the addressees of the decision to verify that the level of the fineis correct and to assess whether there has been any discrimination. 132. In the specific circumstances set out in paragraph 129 above, and having regard tothe fact that in the procedure before the Court the Commission showed itself tobe willing to supply any relevant information relating to the method of calculatingthe fines, the absence of specific grounds in the Decision regarding the method ofcalculation of the fines should not, in the present case, be regarded as constitutingan infringement of the duty to state reasons such as would justify the annulment inwhole or in part of the fines imposed. 133. Consequently, this plea cannot be upheld. 134. Having regard to all the foregoing, the application must be dismissed. Costs 135. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to beordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party'spleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bearthe 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 1: Language of the case: English. ECR