Case T-125/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Economic Area, action for annulment (EU), criminal law, fraud, offence, paper

C 144/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August
Koehler AG against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-125/02)

(2002/C 144/116)

(Language of the case: German)

other cases in which the Commission took a crisis situation
into account as a mitigating circumstance. The Commission
further failed to take into account, and recognise by a reduction
of the fine, the applicant’s cooperation with the Commission
during the procedure.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission did not
make the entire documentation of the investigation available
to the applicant. The applicant’s right to a fair hearing was
thereby infringed.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik
August Koehler AG, of Oberkirch (Germany), represented by
I. Brinker, lawyer.

Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpapiere
AG against Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001

in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper;

(Case T-126/02)

(2002/C 144/117)

— In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 of

the decision;

(Language of the case: German)

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission found that the
and ten other undertakings had infringed
applicant
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA
Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and
concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-
tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,
allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-
ments.

The applicant concedes that it took part in such a cartel, but
only from October 1993. It further submits that in determining
the fine the Commission did not take proper account of the
size of the undertakings concerned. In terms of economic
capability, the applicant was hit much harder by the fine
imposed than the other undertakings fined. The Commission
thereby infringed the principle of proportionality.

The applicant further submits that, although the applicant was
occasioned to take part in the cartel by threats, the Commission
refused to regard that as a mitigating circumstance. Moreover,
the Commission did not take note of the fact that the applicant
was occasioned to take part in the cartel as a result of a specific
crisis situation. Therein lay unequal treatment compared to

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpa-
piere AG, of Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by
J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper,
in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 29,76 million on the
applicant;

— In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the

applicant by Article 3 of the decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant
and ten other undertakings had infringed
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA
Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and
concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-
tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,
allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-
ments.