Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringement — Gravity of the infringement — Increase for deterrence — Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Leniency Notice)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, control of restrictive practices, fine, infringement of EU law, offence, pulp and paper industry, tax system, type of business

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/31

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007
— Bolloré and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02,
T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02) (1)

(Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper — Guidelines
on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringe-
ment — Gravity of the infringement — Increase for deterrence
— Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances —
Leniency Notice)

(2007/C 96/65)

Languages of the case: Spanish, German, English and French

T-125/02 and T-126/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre,
assisted by H.-J. Freund,
in Cases T-132/02 and
lawyer,
T-136/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, assisted by
J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-118/02: Kingdom
of Belgium (represented by: A. Snoecx and M. Wimmer, Agents)

Re:

of Commission Decision

2004/337/EC of
Annulment
20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (OJ 2004
L 115, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction in the fine imposed
on the applicants by that decision.

Parties

Applicant in Case T-109/02: Bolloré SA (Puteaux, France) (repre-
sented by: R. Saint-Esteben and H. Calvet, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-118/02: Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd (Basing-
stoke, United Kingdom)
lawyer,
J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and J. Grierson, Barrister)

(represented by: F. Brunet,

in Case T-122/02: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld
Applicant
GmbH,
formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH (Bielefeld,
Germany) (represented by: I. van Bael, lawyer, and A. Kmiecik,
Solicitor)

Applicant
in Case T-125/02: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG
(Oberkirch, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker and S. Hirs-
brunner, lawyers)

Applicant
in Case T-126/02: M-real Zanders GmbH, formerly
Zanders Feinpapiere AG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (repre-
sented by: J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-128/02: Papeteries Mougeot SA (Laval-sur-
Vologne, France)
J. Baum-
gartner and J.-P. Hordies, and subsequently by Messrs Barsi and
Baumgartner, lawyers)

(represented initially by G. Barsi,

Applicant in Case T-129/02: Torraspapel, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
(represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Cantos and C. Schillemans,
lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-132/02: Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles,
SL (Derio, Spain)
(represented by: E. Pérez Medrano and
I. Delgado González, lawyers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. In Case T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

2. In Case T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by
Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of
20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment
(Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at
EUR 141.75 million;

— dismisses the remainder of the action;

— orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay
two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the
Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one
third of those incurred by the applicant;

— orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those of

the Commission related to the intervention.

3. In Case T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

4. In Case T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission:

Applicant in Case T-136/02: Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga,
SA (Hernani, Spain) (represented by I. Quintana Aguirre, lawyer)

— dismisses the action;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented,
in Cases T-109/02 and T-128/02, by W. Mölls and
F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis,
in Cases T-118/02 and T-129/02, by W. Mölls and
lawyer,
A. Whelan, assisted by M. van der Woude,
in
Case T-122/02, initially by R. Wainwright and W. Mölls, and
subsequently by R. Wainwright and A. Whelan, Agents, in Cases

lawyer,

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

5. In Case T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

C 96/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

6. In Case T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

7. In Case T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

8. In Case T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commis-

sion:

— dismisses the action;

— orders the applicant to pay the costs.

9. In Case T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commis-

sion:

— sets the amount of

the fine imposed on the applicant by
Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of
20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
(Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at
ment
EUR 1 309 million;

— dismisses the remainder of the action;

— orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay
two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the
Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one
third of those incurred by the applicant.

(1) OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007
— Spain v Commission

(Case T-220/04) (1)

(EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from
Community financing — Tomatoes and citrus fruits —
Sample checks — Force majeure)

(2007/C 96/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea
and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: initially M. Nolin and S. Pardo Quintillán and subse-
quently by M. Nolin and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment
in part of Commission Decision
2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under
the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31)

the Guarantee Section of

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes
from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554,48 corre-
sponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of
certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001;

2. dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 29.5.2004 (formerly C-175/04).

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007
— WWF European Policy Programme v Council

(Case T-264/04) (1)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 —
Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest —
Partial access)

(2007/C 96/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WWF European Policy Programme (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: R. Haynes, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of
B. Driessen and M. Bauer, Agents)

the European Union (represented by:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and P. Aalto,
Agents)