Case T-129/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), control of restrictive practices, fine, pulp and paper industry, restriction on competition, tax system

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