Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 October 2005  — Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals v Commission (Competition — Cartels in the vitamin sector — Commission Decision finding infringements that have ceased and not imposing fines — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Time-limit on the power of the Commission to impose fines or penalties — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of innocence — Legitimate interest in finding that infringements have been committed)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, limitation of legal proceedings, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU), vitamin

C 296/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September
2005 — DaimlerChrysler v Commission

5) Dismisses the remainder of the action;

(Case T-325/01) (1)

(Competition — Article 81 EC — Agreements, decisions and
concerted practices — Agency agreement — Distribution of
motor vehicles — Economic unit — Measures designed to
hinder parallel trade in motor vehicles — Price-fixing —
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Fine)

6) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay 60 % of
those incurred by the applicant, and the applicant to bear 40 %
its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.

(2005/C 296/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2005
— Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals v
Commission

Applicant(s): Daimler Chrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (repre-
sented by: R. Bechtold and W. Bosch, lawyers)

(Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02) (1)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Mölls, Agent, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

Application for

Primarly, annulment of Commission Decision 2002/58/EC of
10 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of
the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.264 — Mercedes-Benz)
(OJ
2002 L 257, p. 1) and, in the alternative, reduction in the fine
imposed by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/758/EC of
10 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of
the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.264 — Mercedes-Benz) save in
so far as it finds that DaimlerChrysler AG and its legal predeces-
sors Daimler-Benz AG and Mercedes-Benz AG have themselves or
through their subsidiary Mercedes-Benz Belgium SA infringed
Article 81(1) EC by participating in agreements to restrict the
granting of discounts in Belgium, those agreements having been
concluded on 20 April 1995 and terminated on 10 July 1999;

2) Annuls Article 2 with the exception of the first sentence;

3) Annuls Article 3 of Decision 2002/758 in so far as it sets the
amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 71.825
million;

4) Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 3 of Decision
relating to price-fixing in

infringement

2002/758 for
Belgium at EUR 9.8 million;

the

(Competition — Cartels in the vitamin sector — Commission
Decision finding infringements that have ceased and not
imposing fines — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Time-
limit on the power of the Commission to impose fines or
penalties — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of
innocence — Legitimate interest in finding that infringe-
ments have been committed)

(2005/C 296/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) and
Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan)) (represented by
M. Klusmann, lawyer, and V. Turner, Solicitor)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by L. Pignataro-Nolin and A. Whelan, agents)

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21
November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article
81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/
37.512 — Vitamins) (OJ 2003 L 6, p. 1) in so far as it concerns
the applicants

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/21

Operative part of the judgment

2) Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay

those incurred by the Commission.

The Court:

1) Annuls Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53
of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins)
in so far as it concerns the applicants;

(1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.

2) Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2005
— Rasmussen v Commission

(Case T-203/03) (1)

(Officials — False statements concerning mission expenses
— Disciplinary proceedings — Reprimand — Rules on
languages — Medical confidentiality)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2005 — Common Market Fertilizers v Commission of the
European Communities

(2005/C 296/45)

Language of the case: French

(Joined Cases T-134/03 and T-135/03) (1)

(Remission of import duties — Article 1(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 3319/94 — Invoicing direct to importer — ‘Group
of experts’ within the meaning of Article 907 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2454/93 — Rights of the defence — ‘Obvious
negligence’ within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Obligation to state reasons)

(2005/C 296/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Common Market Fertilizers (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by A. Sutton and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by X. Lewis, Agent)

Application for

Parties

Applicant(s): Lars Bo Rasmussen (Hellerup, Denmark)
sented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and V. Joris and subsequently by V. Joris
and M. Patkova, Agents)

Application for

(i) annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 July 2002
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of a repri-
mand for false statements concerning mission expenses,
(ii)
restitution of amounts recovered pursuant to Article 85 of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and
(iii) compensation for
the non-material damage allegedly
sustained

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

annulment of Commission Decisions C (2002) 5217 final and
C (2002) 5218 final of 20 December 2002 finding that the
remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.

2) Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and half of the costs

incurred by the Commission;

3) Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the applications.

(1) OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.