Case T-130/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid system, regional aid, terms for aid

13.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/37

Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-129/02)

(2002/C 169/65)

(Language of the case: English)

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 Torraspapel SA,
represented by Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Francisco Cantos
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested Decision in so far as it
establishes an infringement of Article 81, paragraph 1, of
the Treaty by the applicant in the period from 1 January
1992 to September 1993; and reduce the fine accord-
ingly;

— substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
the applicant in Article 3 of the contested Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in
case T-109/02 Bolloré/Commission (1). By this Decision, the
Defendant found that the applicant and ten other manufac-
turers of carbonless paper had infringed Article 81(1) of the
EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of
the EEA Agreement by
participating in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices by which they fixed price increases, allocated sales
quotas and fixed market shares and set up machinery to
monitor the implementation of the restrictive agreements.

In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that the
Commission has wrongly applied Article 81(1) of the Treaty
and violated the principle of presumption of innocence, as
well as an essential procedural requirement, as it has not
sufficiently proven that the applicant committed an infringe-
ment of the above-mentioned provision from January 1992
until September 1993. It is stressed in this regard that such an
approach does not mean that the applicant would recognise
that there was an infringement concerning the period there-
after. It has however chosen not to lodge an appeal against the
entire decision of the Commission.

The Commission has also breached Article 15(2) of Regulation
17/62 in that it has wrongly classed the alleged infringement
as ‘very serious’. Firstly, in defining the alleged cartel as ‘price
fixing market sharing practices’, the Commission seeks to
confer a disproportionate importance on the alleged market
allocation practices, misrepresenting their gravity. Secondly,
in classing the alleged infringement as ‘very serious’, the
Commission does not take account of the difference between
agreements fixing prices, which lead to uniform prices, and
other price agreements, which do not lead to uniform prices.
Moreover, the Commission has failed properly to examine the
relative gravity of the infringement allegedly committed by the
In short, the defendant has failed to take into
applicant.
consideration the fact that the applicant, as it claims, did not
apply the price increases allegedly fixed and thus defeated the
anti-competitive effects of the alleged cartel; in addition the
Commission wrongly assessed the effective capacity of the
applicant to cause damage to competition.

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH
& Co. KG against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-130/02)

(2002/C 169/66)

(Language of the case: German)

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 Kronopoly
GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengrabe (Germany), represented by
R. Nierer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2002 not
to correct the decision of 3 July 2001 on planned aid
No N 813/2000;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay

those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision,
the Commission established a
competitive factor of 0,75 in respect of the notified aid. In the

C 169/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.

In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.

The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
it
the multisectoral
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without
withdrawing it.

framework on regional aid and that

Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested
decision.

Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-131/02)

(2002/C 169/67)

(Language of the case: English)

European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
& Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

that, pursuant

to the second paragraph of
Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
£ 25,5 million;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-

cation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.

Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
plc against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/02)

(2002/C 169/68)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of

11 February 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed