CELEX: C2001/212/18
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-190/01 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 20 February 2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and Commission of the European Communities

28.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 212/11
Appeal brought on 2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-                             the Charter has not yet been ratified, it creates no new
Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 20 February                        law but merely codifies unwritten general principles of
2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       Community law.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG
                                                                              The Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              recognise that the principle of administrative effectiveness
                                                                              — in the present case the effective enforcement of
                        (Case C-190/01 P)                                     Article 81 EC — cannot justify the restriction of funda-
                                                                              mental Community rights from the point of view of effet
                                                                              utile. In the present case the Court of First Instance
                         (2001/C 212/18)                                      infringed the essential content of the fundamental right
                                                                              nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. The restriction is moreover
                                                                              disproportionate, since it was possible for the investi-
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 February                       gation to be concluded favourably from the Commission’s
2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       point of view in another way, and the Commission has
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        in the meantime taken a decision in the case and imposed
Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and                           fines on the undertakings concerned, including the appli-
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            cant.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, represented                          The Court of First Instance further erred in law by
by Dr Martin Klusmann and Dr Frederik Wiemer, Rechtsanwäl-                    assuming that it is only an admission which may not be
te, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Düsseldorf.                            required, and that an accused must, however, provide
                                                                              evidence other than an admission, in particular documen-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   tary evidence, against himself. However, ‘admission’ and
                                                                              ‘documentary evidence’ are qualitatively evidence of equal
1.    Set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First                    value, either of which may on its own prove participation
      Instance of the European Communities of 20 February                     in an infringement.
      2001 in Case T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG
      v Commission of the European Communities (1) in so far                  The Court of First Instance erred in law, finally, in
      as it dismissed the action by Mannesmannröhren-Werke                    considering that the recognition of a fundamental right
      AG against Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May                     may be made to depend on all Member States generally
      1998 relating to a procedure under Article 81 EC;                       recognising such a right in their national legal systems.
                                                                              Since all EU Member States are in any case also Con-
2.    Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of                    tracting States to the European Convention on Human
      15 May 1998 relating to a procedure under Article 81                    Rights, they must correspond to the level of protection
      EC in its entirety; in the alternative, in accordance with              of the Convention, as implemented by the Funke line of
      Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court: Refer the case               case-law;
      back to the Court of First Instance of the European
      Communities to give judgment in accordance with the               —     Breach of the legal principles of definiteness and legal
      view of the law taken by the Court of Justice;                          certainty: The dividing line to be drawn, on the basis
                                                                              of the judgment at first instance, between an answer
3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the entire                     constituting an admission, which is not due, and a factual
      proceedings.                                                            answer, which is due, is unconvincing and cannot be
                                                                              made with precision;
                                                                        —     Breach of Article 6(2) EU;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     Breach of Article 6(1) EU;
—     Breach of the legal principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare:     —     Disregard of the guarantees of national law for natural
      The Court of First Instance wrongly relied essentially on               persons;
      the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 October 1989
      in Case C-374/87 Orkem v Commission. It has since                 —     Incorrect presentation of the applicant’s submissions.
      become settled case-law of the European Court of Human
      Rights (2) that Article 6 of the European Convention on
      Human Rights impliedly contains the fundamental right
      nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. Similarly, the Court of First     (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 21, not yet published in the ECR.
      Instance disregarded the principles of Community law              (2) Judgment of 25.2.1993 Funke v France; judgment of 17.12.1996
      expressed in the second paragraph of Article 47 and                   Saunders v the United Kingdom.
      Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
      European Union, the level of protection of which, under
      Article 52(3) of the Charter, may not fall short of that
      under the European Convention on Human Rights; while