CELEX: C1999/299/06
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-196/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities

16.10.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/5
     In its examination of the pricing agreements in the light of        Pleas in law and main arguments
     Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, the Court also failed
     entirely to take account of the special features of ‘normal
     competition’ within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
     ECSC Treaty. In this it accepted that DG III could modify           Case C-194/99 P, with the exception of those set out in the
     ‘normal competition’ and, in particular, that it had con-           first indent in the notice relating to that case.
     ceded to undertakings, within the context of cooperation
     with DG III, scope for discussions on price forecasts. Had
                                                                         (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     it acted correctly, the Court ought to have examined
     whether the practices in question came within that scope,
     since, if that were so, there would be no anti-competitive
     conduct within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC
     Treaty.
— Error in law in the quantification of the fine.
— Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
     Human Rights by reason of the unduly lengthy duration               Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain
     of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.              Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March
                                                                         1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                         in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case C-196/99 P) (*)
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch Stahl                                                 (1999/C 299/06)
AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the                       European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica
                     European Communities                                Aristrain Madrid S.L., represented by Antonio Creus, of the
                                                                         Barcelona Bar, and Natalia Lacalle Mangas, of the Madrid Bar,
                        (Case C-195/99 P) (*)                            with an address for service at the Cuatrecasas Law Chambers,
                                                                         78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels, against the judg-
                          (1999/C 299/05)                                ment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the            Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch                      Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities.
Stahl AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Dering-
er, Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment
delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance                I.   Annul the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                         Court of First Instance in Case T-156/94 (1) on the ground
Composition) in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v                         of all or some of the defects indicated, and draw from
Commission of the European Communities.                                       the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences,
                                                                              whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   refers the case back to the Court of First Instance, and, in
                                                                              particular:
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      1. Annul the contested judgment in so far as it finds that
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                               the decision does not infringe Community law by
     T-147/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed                   reason of misapplication and misinterpretation of
     on the appellant at EUR 9 000 (paragraph (1) of the                          Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and, accordingly, annul
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph                 the decision on that ground;
     (2) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                  2. Rule on the substance, in so far as it is ready for
     (paragraph (3) of the operative part);                                       judgment, or, if not, refer the case back to the Court of
                                                                                  First Instance in order that it may rule on the grounds
2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision                               set out below, and accordingly annul the decision in
     C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-                    so far as it relates to these grounds or, in the alternative,
     ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning                     reduce the fine imposed on the appellant:
     agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     pean producers of beams;
                                                                                  — joint responsibility,
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     at first instance and those of the present appeal.                           — failure to state reasons,
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/6                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
         — inconsistency,                                               — Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment
                                                                             of the Court of First Instance results in a series of
         — infringement of the principle of equality and                     inconsistencies in regard to its analysis and assessment of
             proportionality in expressing the fines in Ecus,                a number of arguments.
                                                                             (a) First, in relation to the argument concerning joint
         — failure to order the Commission to pay to the                         liability, inasmuch as the respondent imposed a fine
             applicant at first instance the full expenses and                   only on Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, attributing to it
             interest resulting from the lodging of a surety or                  the conduct of its sister company;
             from payment of the fine in full or in part; the
             Court should rule that the interest on the fine does            (b) Second, in relation to the aggravating circumstance
             not begin to accrue until the judgment of the Court                 resulting from awareness that the conduct criticised
             of First Instance becomes enforceable, and should                   was unlawful; and, finally
             accordingly order the Commission to pay the
                                                                             (c) In relation to the date indicated in the operative part
             expenses and interest accrued on the surety or
                                                                                 of the Commission decision from which the alleged
             payment of the fine,
                                                                                 infringements attributed to Siderúrgica Aristrain Mad-
                                                                                 rid began to run.
         — idem in relation to the eighth and ninth pleas in
             the present appeal.                                        — Infringement of Community law through misapplication
                                                                             and misinterpretation of the principle of equality and
    3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, in so             proportionality in so far as the judgment of the Court of
         far as is not ready for judgment, in order that the latter          First Instance failed correctly to take account of the
         may rule on:                                                        depreciations incurred by the Spanish peseta, which result-
                                                                             ed in an increase in the fine payable by Siderúrgica
                                                                             Aristrain Madrid compared with those payable by other
         — the plea relating to misuse of power.                             undertakings whose currencies had not suffered devalu-
                                                                             ation or had been revalued.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs and also rule that
    the respondent must pay the costs in the proceedings at             — Infringement of Community law and of fundamental rights
    first instance, in the event that the Court of Justice upholds           on the ground of inconsistency in the reasoning of the
    in whole or in part the pleas in law set out in the present              judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it failed
    appeal.                                                                  to order the Commission to pay the expenses and interest
                                                                             resulting from the lodging of a surety or payment of the
                                                                             fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Infringement of Community law by reason of a breach of
                                                                             Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                             Instance and breach of procedural guarantees in so far as
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication                       the deliberations of the Court were concluded by only
    and misinterpretation of Article 65 of the Treaty estab-                 three of the five judges who constituted the Chamber at
    lishing the European Coal and Steel Community (the ECSC                  the time of the hearing.
    Treaty) in the assessment of the infringements allegedly
    committed within the context of that Treaty and the                 — Infringement of Community law in so far as the appellant
    ECSC market, inasmuch as the grounds of the impugned                     was refused the right to a fair decision within a reasonable
    judgment are contradictory in relation to this point.                    period of time, contrary to Article 6 of the European
                                                                             Convention on Human Rights.
— Infringement of Community law inasmuch as the Court of
    First Instance erred in law in its judgment in its application      (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
    of the notion of misuse of power due to the fact that it            (1) OJ 1999 C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 16.
    failed properly to examine the appellant’s argument in that
    regard or the factors relied on.
— Infringement of Community law through misapplication
    and misinterpretation of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty,             Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
    inasmuch as the statement of reasons in the decision                Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) against the judgment delivered
    relating to the fine is defective.                                  on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
— Infringement of Community law in so far as the judgment               Composition) in Case T-157/94 Empresa Nacional Sid-
    of the Court of First Instance is not sufficiently reasoned in      erúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European
    regard to:                                                                                     Communities
                                                                                                (Case C-198/99 P) (*)
    (a) a fundamental point in the applicants’ argument
         concerning the absence of a quorum for the adoption                                      (1999/C 299/07)
         of the contested decision;
                                                                        An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
    (b) its refusal to compare the level of the fines imposed on        European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Empresa Nacional
         other cartels under the EEC Treaty, without offering           Siderúrgica S.A. (Ensidesa), represented by Santiago Martı́nez
         any valid grounds for that refusal.                            Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamente Köster, of the Madrid Bar,