Case T-500/04: Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, Germany, action brought before an administrative court, aid system, culture, financial aid, provision of services, redemption

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/31

3. obtain and refer to the documents in case T-312/01 and
adopt any other procedural measures which the Court
considers appropriate.

Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Commission of
IIC Informations-
the European Communities against

Industrie Consulting GmbH

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Commission found that

By the contested decision,
the
applicants had participated in a continuous agreement and/or
concerted practice in the sodium gluconate sector and had
thereby infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement. As a result, fines were imposed on those undertak-
ings.

The applicants are contesting that decision and submit that it
was only Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH which was respon-
sible for the infringement. Jungbunzlauer Austria AG and Jung-
bunzlauer AG did not at any time participate in the infringe-
ment and had no influence on the market behaviour or
company policies of Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH. Nor, in
the applicants' submission, were they liable by virtue of their
association with Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH from the
point of view of company law, or by virtue of their member-
ship of the Jungbunzlauer group. Jungbunzlauer Holding AG
was merely a holding company without any decisive influence
on the production volume and pricing policies and thereby on
Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH in the
the behaviour of
sodium gluconate market.

Jungbunzlauer Austria AG,

Even if
Jungbunzlauer AG and
Jungbunzlauer Holding AG had been responsible for the infrin-
gement, which, according to the applicants, is not the case, the
Commission's power to impose fines on those companies had
already been lost through lapse of time.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that, in so far as the decision
is addressed to Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg AG, it is defective in
form and substance, because the Commission was in breach of
a number of rules and principles. Among other, the Commis-
sion infringed the principles of presumed innocence and good
administration by carrying out a second administrative proce-
dure while the court proceedings relating to a decision of 2
October 2001 concerning the same cartel were still pending.
By its ‘second’ decision of 29 September 2004, the Commission
also infringed the principle of legitimate expectation and the
principle of ne bis indem. Moreover, the length of the proceed-
ings was unreasonable.

With regard to the fine imposed, the applicants assert, among
other, that the fine is disproportionately high and exceeds the
upper limit of fines, that the Commission is mistaken in its
assumption of duration, that Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH
is not the ringleader and that there are extenuating circum-
stances due to the excessive length of the proceedings.

(Case T-500/04)

(2005/C 82/59)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH,
Königswinter (Germany), was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Braun, W. Wils and N. Knittlmayer, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order

the

defendant

applicant
EUR 181 236,61 together with interest at 4 % as from 1
November 1998;

pay

the

to

to

2. order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1996 the applicant concluded with the defendant
two
contracts in which the applicant undertook to grant the defen-
dant financial aid for the implementation of two trans Euro-
pean cultural projects. The financial aid was intended to cover
50 % of the defendant's project costs in so far as those costs
were incurred and claimed in a contractually permissible
manner. In 1997, on the basis of those contracts, the defendant
received a sum totalling DM 400 821 (EUR 204 936,52) as an
advance payment of the total financial aid.

Following completion of the projects, the defendant claimed
from the applicant purported project costs, the amount of
which it intended to deduct from the financial aid paid in
advance. However, the applicant carried out a check and came
to the conclusion that the defendant was entitled only to finan-
for both
cial aid totalling DM 46 300,18 (EUR 23 672,91)
projects. The applicant
the
remaining sum of EUR 181 263,61 (DM 354 520,82).

therefore claims repayment of