CELEX: C2002/202/08
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-213/02 P: Appeal brought on 7 June 2002 by ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-31/99 between ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

24.8.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/7
Appeal brought on 7 June 2002 by ABB Asea Brown                        Misinterpretation of Article 44(1)(c): ABB recognizes that
Boveri Ltd against the judgment delivered on 20 March                  general references to other documents cannot compensate for
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance              deficiencies in a party’s application. However, the Tribunal has
of the European Communities in case T-31/99 between                    found a defect neither in the Application nor in ABB’s Reply.
ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd and the Commission of the                    ABB thus cannot conceivably have compensated a defective
                    European Communities                               submission by a general reference to the Opinion. Moreover,
                                                                       there is, and the Judgment has established, no basis for relying
                                                                       on Article 44(1)(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by way
                        (Case C-213/02 P)                              of analogy.
                         (2002/C 202/08)                               Misinterpretation of the principle of legitimate expectations:
                                                                       The Judgment fails to recognize that legitimate expectations
                                                                       may arise from the Commission’s fining practice, that the
                                                                       Leniency Notice invites undertakings to rely on these fining
                                                                       practices and that the level of protection of legitimate expec-
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002
                                                                       tations is thereby strengthened, limiting the Commission’s
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       discretion to at will depart from an established practice.
European Communities in case T-31/99 (1) between ABB Asea
Brown Boveri Ltd and the Commission of the European
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 7 June 2002 by ABB Brown                       The Judgment misapplies Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17 (2):
Boveri Ltd, established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by        The Commission has used the defendant undertakings’ turn-
A. Weitbrecht, M. Bay and S. Seelmann-Eggebert, lawyers, with          over in the products affected by the infringement only in order
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  to divide these undertakings into four categories; in order to
                                                                       ‘reflect the importance of each firm in the pipe sector’, it has not
                                                                       used the turnover affected by the infringement to determine the
                                                                       gravity of the infringement (before taking into account the
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                            duration, aggravating and attenuating circumstances and the
                                                                       reduction under the Leniency Notice).
(1) set aside Sections 2 and 3 of the operative part of the
      Judgment; and
                                                                       (1) OJ C 121, 1.5.1999, p. 16.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
(2) annul Article 3 of the Decision as it relates to the                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ L 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204 [SE
      Appellant; and                                                       SER1 (59-62) p. 87]).
(3) further reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant by the
      Decision;
      alternatively to points (2) and (3);
(4) refer the case back to the Tribunal for decision in
      accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
(5) require the Commission to pay the costs of the entire              Stuttgart by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the
      proceedings, including those of the Appellant.                   case of Karin Müller against Postbeamtenkrankenkasse;
                                                                       Additional party: Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Ange-
                                                                                                      stellte
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-215/02)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 202/09)
Misapplication of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure leading to
the rejection as inadmissible of the Opinion submitted by ABB
as an annex to its Reply.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
Misinterpretation of Article 48(2): The Judgment fails to              (Social Court, Stuttgart) of 4 June 2002, received at the Court
distinguish between new pleas in law and arguments support-            Registry on 10 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
ing pleas already raised. The Opinion’s introduction was               of Karin Müller against Postbeamtenkrankenkasse; Additional
admissible because it amplifies a plea raised in the Application       party: Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte on the fol-
rather than introducing new pleas in law.                              lowing questions: