Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC Decision, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), fine, paperboard

C 28/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 November 2000

in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the
amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circum-
stances)

(2001/C 28/17)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,
established in Mayen, Germany, represented by T. Jestaedt, of
the Brussels Bar and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
P. Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against
the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 Weig v Commission [1998]
ECR II-1235, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal assisted by D. Schroeder) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November
2000, in which it:

1. Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94
Weig v Commission;

2.

Fixes at EUR 1 900 000 the amount of the fine to be imposed
on Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG by Article 3 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 — Car-
tonboard);

3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

4. Orders Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs
and to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Commission of the
European Community before the Court of Justice;

5. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear

one-third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in
the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova

(Case C-388/00)

(2001/C 28/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(District Court), Genoa, of 23 October 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
the following questions:

(1) Does Community law, in the light also of its fundamental
principles for which there is no primary textual source,
preclude legislation and/or national administrative prac-
tice which — in the context of a system where matters
concerning conformity assessment procedures for the
purposes of placing radio equipment on the market and
putting such equipment into service have been delegated
to the administrative authorities, to be decided merely at
their discretion — precludes economic operators from
importing, marketing or holding in stock, with a view to
selling, radio equipment that has not undergone national
type-approval, and which does not admit other forms of
evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to obtain,
to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
requirements concerning the proper use of the radio
frequencies authorised under national law?

(2) Does Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 9 March 1999 confer on individuals
rights upon which they may rely before the national
courts, where the Directive itself has not been formally
transposed into national law and the deadline for such
transposition has already expired? If that question is
answered in the affirmative,
is it compatible with
Article 7(2)) of Directive 1999/5/EC to maintain in force
legislation and/or administrative practice which, after
8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing and/or the putting
into service of radio equipment which does not bear
the national type-approval stamp, where it has been
confirmed that such equipment makes efficient and
proper use of the radio frequencies authorised under
national law, or where it is easy to verify that this is the
case?

(3) On a proper construction of Article 1 of Decision
No 3052/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 13 December 1995, how is the term ‘the
measure’ to be interpreted and does that term cover the
situation where the administrative authorities, having
seized a particular model or a particular type of product
which is lawfully marketed in another Member State,
continue to withhold that model or product after it has
been ascertained by the public authorities responsible for
technical checks that the good in question is in conform-
ity with both national and Community legislation, that is
to say, after the evidential purposes justifying the initial
seizure have been served?