Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01: Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Appeal — Cartel — Graphite electrodes market — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Calculation of fines — Concurrent sanctions — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Attenuating circumstances — Ability to pay — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Arrangements for payment)
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, Japan, United States, action for annulment (EU), carbon, chemical industry, electrical equipment, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/13

Cases in which the Judge-Rapporteur is assigned to another
Chamber as a result of the amendment of the composition of
the Chambers
from 13
September 2004, to the Chamber to which the Judge-Rappor-
teur belongs from that date.

shall be reallocated, with effect

In cases where the written procedure was completed and a
hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before 13
September 2004, the Chamber shall continue to sit with the
same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the
deliberation and the judgment.

Composition of the Grand Chamber

On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in
accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that
for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September
2005 the Grand Chamber shall be composed of: Mr Vesterdorf,
President of the Court of First Instance; Mr Jaeger, Mr Pirrung,
Mr Vilaras and Mr Legal, Presidents of Chambers; the Judges of
the Chamber (Extended Composition) who would have had to
hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber
composed of five Judges; and four other Judges designated by
the President of the Court of First Instance in turn from among
the Judges of each of the other Chambers,
in the order of
precedence of those Judges within their Chambers according to
seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance.

As regards cases where the written procedure was completed
and,
in the oral procedure, a hearing before the Grand
Chamber was held or fixed before 13 September 2004, the
Grand Chamber shall continue to sit with the same composi-
tion as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and
the judgment.

Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers

On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance laid down
criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers
for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September
2005, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure.

1. Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been
lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application
of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Cham-
bers of three Judges.

2. Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accord-
ance with the date on which they are registered at the
Registry, following four separate rotas, namely:

— for cases concerning application of

the competition
rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid
and the rules on trade protection measures;

— for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC Treaty

and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;

— for cases concerning intellectual property rights, as envi-

saged by Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

— for all other cases.

In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken
into consideration at each fifth turn.

The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to
ensuring an even spread of the workload.

Plenary session

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in
accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of
the Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation
of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of
First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in
advance in accordance with which the President of the Court is
to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment
of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the
Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article
6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus
be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the
Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.

Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application
for interim measures

On 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance decided, in
accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to
designate Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of
the Court of First Instance for the purpose of deciding applica-
tions for interim measures where the latter
is absent or
prevented from dealing with them,
in respect of the period
from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005.

of 29 April 2004

in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01,
T-251/01 and T-252/01: Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and Others
v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Appeal — Cartel — Graphite electrodes
market — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Calculation of
fines — Concurrent sanctions — Guidelines on the method
of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and duration of
the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Attenu-
ating circumstances — Ability to pay — Cooperation during
the administrative procedure — Arrangements for payment)

(2004/C 251/24)

(Language of the case: German and English)

In Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-
251/01 and T-252/01: Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in
Tokyo (Japan),
represented initially by G. Van Gerven,
T. Franchoo and M. De Grave and, subsequently, by G. Van
Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, with an address for service in

C 251/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.10.2004

Luxembourg, SGL Carbon AG, established in Wiesbaden
(Germany),
represented by M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and
C. Canenbley, lawyers, Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in
lawyer, Showa
Tokyo (Japan), represented by H. Gilliams,
Denko KK, established in Tokyo (Japan),
represented by
M. Dolmans and P. Werdmuller, lawyers, and J. Temple Lang,
Solicitor, GrafTech International Ltd, formerly UCAR Interna-
tional Inc., established in Wilmington, Delaware (United States),
represented by K. Lasok QC and B. Hartnett, Barrister, BL, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, SEC Corp., established in
Amagasaki, Hyogo (Japan), represented by K. Platteau, lawyer,
The Carbide/Graphite Group,
Inc., established in Pittsburgh
represented initially by M. Seimetz and
(United States),
J. Brücher and, subsequently, by P. Grund,
lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
European Communities,
and
represented by W. Mölls
P. Hellström, and,
in Case T-246/01, by W. Wils, acting as
Agents, with, in Case T-239/01, H.-J. Freund, lawyer, and, in
Cases T-244/01, T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01, J. Flynn
and C. Kilroy, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg — applications for annulment, in whole or in part, of
Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to
a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite
electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President,
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in
which it:

1. In Case T-236/01 Tokai Carbon v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 12 276 000;

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— orders each party to bear one half of its own costs and to pay

one half of the costs incurred by the opposing party.

4. In Case T-245/01 Showa Denko v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 10 440 000;

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— orders the applicant to bear three fifths of its own costs and to
pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and
the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay
two fifths of the costs incurred by the applicant.

5. In Case T-246/01 GrafTech International, formerly UCAR Inter-

national v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 42 050 000;

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs and to
pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and
the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay
one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

6. In Case T-251/01 SEC Corporation v Commission:

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 6 138 000;

— orders each party to bear one half of its own costs and to pay

one half of the costs incurred by the opposing party.

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

2. In Case T-239/01 SGL Carbon v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 69 114 000;

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— orders the applicant to bear seven eighths of its own costs and
to pay seven eighths of the costs incurred by the Commission
and the Commission to bear one eighth of its own costs and
to pay one eighth of the costs incurred by the applicant.

— orders each party to bear one half of its own costs and to pay

one half of the costs incurred by the opposing party.

7. In Case T-252/01 The Carbide/Graphite Group v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 6 480 000;

— dismisses the remainder of the application;

— orders the applicant to bear three fifths of its own costs and to
pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and
the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay
two fifths of the costs incurred by the applicant.

3. In Case T-244/01 Nippon Carbon v Commission:

(1) OJ C 17, 19.1.2002.

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by

Article 3 of Decision 2002/271 at EUR 6 274 400;