Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:88
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: Statement of reasons;Determining the amount of the fine;Agreements of undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Appeal against penalty - successful
Origin: Germany

summary publication, and T-151/89 Société des 
Treillis et Panneaux Soudés v Commission [1995] ECR II-1191, summary publica­
tion), 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. 
173 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. 
II - 865 
JUDGMENT OF 14. 5. 1998 — CASE T-295/94 
174 In the specific circumstances set out in paragraph 172 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 cal­
culation 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. 
175 Consequently, this plea cannot be upheld. 
176 It follows from the whole of the foregoing that the eighth indent of Article 1 of 
the Decision must be annulled as regards the applicant. 
177 As regards the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of the Decision, the 
Court must first determine whether the fact that the infringement committed by 
the applicant cannot be considered to extend to collusion on market shares must 
lead to a reduction in that fine. 
178 The Court considers, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, that the gravity 
of the infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty which the applicant is found to 
have committed, namely its participation in the collusion on prices and on down­
time, is still such that the amount of the fine should not be reduced. 
179 In that regard, the Court observes that the applicant did not participate in the 
PWG meetings, and fines were not therefore imposed upon it as a cartel 'ring­
leader'. Because, as the Commission itself states, the applicant was not a 'prime 
mover' of the cartel (point 170, first paragraph, of the Decision), the level of fine 
adopted in regard to it was 7.5% of its turnover on the Community cartonboard 
market in 1990. That general level of fines-which the applicant has not 
challenged-is justified (see paragraph 301 et seq. above). 
II - 866 
BUCHMANN ν COMMISSION 
180 Furthermore, even though the Commission wrongly considered that producers 
which were not represented in the PWG were 'well aware' of the collusion on 
market shares (point 58, first paragraph, of the Decision), the Decision itself nev­
ertheless makes it clear that it was the undertakings meeting in the PWG which 
took concerted action on the 'freezing' of market shares (in particular point 52 of 
the Decision) and that there was no discussion of market shares held by the pro­
ducers which were not represented in it. Moreover, as the Commission stated in 
point 116, second paragraph, of the Decision, 'by their very nature the market 
sharing arrangements (particularly the freezing of shares described in recitals 56 
and 57) involved primarily the major producers'. The collusion on market shares 
wrongly attributed to the applicant was therefore, in the Commission's own view, 
merely a secondary aspect of collusion on prices. 
181 As regards the pleas for annulment or reduction of the fine, the Court has found 
that when the Commission determined the amount of that fine it wrongly took 
into account the applicant's turnover from sales of cartonboard worldwide in 1990 
rather than turnover from sales in the Community alone in that year. As the other 
pleas have been rejected, the Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, will set 
the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of the Decision at 
E C U 2 150 000. 
Costs 
182 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 applicant has been largely unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay 
the costs, including those of the interim proceedings, as sought by the Commis­
sion. 
II - 867 
JUDGMENT OF 14. 5. 1998 — CASE T-295/94 
On those grounds, 
THE COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 
hereby: 
1) Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of Article 1 of Commis­
sion 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) Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of 
Decision 94/601 at ECU 2 150 000; 
3) Dismisses the application as regards the remaining claims; 
4) Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim 
proceedings. 
Vesterdorf Briet Lindh 
Potocki Cooke 
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 May 1998. 
H. Jung 
Registrar 
B. Vesterdorf 
President 
II - 868