Case T-113/04: Action brought on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Grupo TMM SA De CV, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, P & Nedlloyd Container Line Limited and Sea-Land Service, Inc against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), competition, damages, dominant position, fine, maritime conference, maritime transport

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/45

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to have
regard to the principle of equal treatment and the leniency
notice of 1996 by not imposing a fine on Axzo even though it
was proven to have played a decisive role in implementing the
unlawful conduct. In so doing the Commission afforded the
applicant's main competitor an unjustified financial advantage
worth millions which directly and individually concerned the
applicant.

Action brought on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container
Line AB, Grupo TMM SA De CV, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd,
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Mediterranean Shipping
Co SA, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Orient Overseas
Container Line (UK) Ltd, P&O Nedlloyd Container Line
Limited and Sea-Land Service, Inc against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-113/04)

(2004/C 118/98)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic
Container Line AB, Gothenburg (Sweden), Grupo TMM SA De
CV, Tlalpan (Mexico), Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Seoul (South
Korea), Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Seoul (South Korea),
Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Geneva (Switzerland), Neptune
Orient Lines Ltd, Singapore (Republic of Singapore), Orient
Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, Levington (United Kingdom),
P&O Nedlloyd Container Line Limited, London, and Sea-Land
Service, Inc, Jacksonville (USA), represented by J. Pheasant, M.
Levitt and K. Nicholson, Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a) order the Commission to pay to the applicants the sums set

out in Annex A.1 to this application;

(b) order the Commission to pay to the applicants interest at
the rate of the European Central Bank for capital refinan-
cing operations plus 2 %, or at such other rate as the Court
considers to be just in all the circumstances, payable in rela-
tion to the period from the date on which each individual
applicant's respective liability for costs in respect of its
bank guarantee ceased (as set out in Annex A.1) until the
date of the Court's judgment on this application;

(c) order the Commission to pay to the applicants interest at
such rate as the Court considers to be just in all the circum-
stances on such amounts as the Court orders to be paid
under sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) above as from the date of
the Court's judgment in this case until payment thereof;

(d) order that the decision contained in or evidenced by the

Commission's letter of 6 January 2004 be annulled;

(e) order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

On 16 December 1998, the Commission imposed fines on the
applicants in respect of two infringements of Article 82 EC. By
judgment of 30 September 2003 (1), The Court of First Instance
annulled those fines in full.

The applicants allege that
they have suffered considerable
monetary loss as a direct result of the Commission's unlawful
imposition of the fines. According to the applicants, this loss
takes the form of
the costs incurred by the applicants in
providing bank guarantees in lieu of payment of the fines
unlawfully imposed and in maintaining those guarantees in
force from the date on which they were first obtained until the
date of their cancellation. The payment of a sum equal to such
costs is necessary in order to restore the applicants to the legal
position in which they would have been, had the Commission
not unlawfully imposed such fines.

The applicant seeks an order requiring the Commission to take
the ‘necessary measures’ required by Article 233 EC to comply
with the above-mentioned judgment, by paying each of the
applicants an amount equivalent to the costs incurred by each
applicant respectively in the provision of its bank guarantee,
together with the appropriate interest.

(1) Judgment of 30.9.2003 in joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98–T-
214/98, Atlantic Container Line and others/Commission (not yet
published in European Court Reports).

Action brought on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke
Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-116/04)

(2004/C 118/99)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke
Aktiengesellschaft, Ulm (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold
and U. Soltész, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should: