CELEX: C1995/119/43
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Corporación Uniland SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-58/95)

13 . 5 . 95          LM                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 119/21
5 . In assessing the role of the applicant, the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to properly appreciate the fact that the applicant
     was a victim of a continued abuse of a collective                The applicant relies upon the following grounds:
     dominant position by the members of the European
     Task Force, a grouping of the major European                       I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:
     producers, whose aim was to prevent exports from
     Greece to the rest of the Community.                                  1 . Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 17,
                                                                               Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 99/63 and
6. The Commission has not sufficiently shown in law that                       Article 3 of Regulation No 1 on the following
     the applicant participated in a 'single and continuous'                   grounds:
     agreement relating to the principle of non-transhipment
     to home markets .                                                         (a ) Sending a Statement of Objections lacking
                                                                                     clarity, vitiated by lack of coherency and
                                                                                     unclear as to the period to which the
7. The Commission has incorrectly interpreted the
                                                                                     objections relate;
     activities of the Export Policy Committee and the role of
     the applicant within it.                                                  ( b ) Incomplete notification of the Statement of
                                                                                     Objections and refusal to give access to the
8 . The fine imposed on the applicant is based on an                                 whole of the file;
     erroneous assessment of the facts and clear breach of the
     rule of law. In any event it is excessive.                                (c) Inadequate access to the file;
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p. 1 .                                       ( d ) Notification of documents not written in
                                                                                     Spanish;
                                                                               (e) Failure to be allowed to participate in the
                                                                                     hearing;
                                                                               ( f) Substantial amendment of the objections
                                                                                     without sending a new Statement of
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Corporacion                                    Objections and without granting the parties
Uniland SA against the Commission of the European                                    the opportunity to state their opinion in that
                            Communities
                                                                                     regard.
                          (Case T-58/95 )
                           ( 95/C 119/43 )                                 2. Infringement of Article 1 0 of Regulation No 1 7: thé
                                                                               Commission did not inform the Advisory
                                                                               Committee of the amount of the fines to be
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                               imposed by the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European                       II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Treaty:
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Corporacion Uniland SA
represented by Luis de Carlos Bertrân and Edurne Navarro                   1 , as regards the so-called 'Cembureau Agreement',
Varona, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service                      the Commission has failed to prove either the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,                               existence, or the unitary and continuous nature, or
62 Avenue Guillaume,                                                           the duration of the alleged agreement;
                                                                           2, as regards the 'European Task Force', the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission has failed to prove that the ETF
                                                                               constituted an agreement contrary to Article 85 of
— annul in whole Commission Decision 94/815/EC of                              the EC Treaty, or that the applicant participated in
     30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under                           the agreement setting up the ETF, or the duration of
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and                         the alleged agreement;
     33.322 — Cement),
                                                                           3 , as regards Interciment, the Commission has failed
                                                                                to prove either that the applicant was party to the
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ) and 4 ( 3 )
                                                                                agreement relating to the constitution of
     (a ) and 9 of the aforementioned Decision in so far as they                Interciment or the duration of such agreement;
     affect the applicant,
                                                                           4, as regards the defence measures for the Italian
— as a subsidiary plea, reduce the amount of the fine                           market, the Commission has failed to prove the
     imposed on the applicant, set out in Article 9 of the                      existence of concerted practices intended to avoid
     Decision,                                                                  Calestruzzi being a customer for Greek producers
                                                                                or the participation of the applicant in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       aforementioned alleged practices.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
III. As regards the amount of the fine imposed, the                         6. Imposition of fines without prior warning.
      applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 15 of
      Regulation No 17, alleging that there was a mistake               II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC Treaty
      both in determining the duration of the matters alleged               through lack of evidence and erroneous assessment of
      and the assessment of the seriousness of its alleged                  the applicable legal concepts, as regards:
      participation; and secondly, breach of the principle of
      fairness .                                                            1 . The analysis of the relevant market;
                                                                            2. The Cembureau Agreement;
                                                                            3 . The agreements concerning the exchange of
                                                                                information on prices;
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de
Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana 'Oficemen' against the                     4. The concerted practices concerning the exchange of
         Commission of the European Communities                                 information on prices;
                          (Case T-59/95 )
                                                                            5 . The Spain-Portugal Agreement;
                           ( 95/C 119/44)
                                                                            6 . The agreement concerning the European Task
                  (Language of the case: Spartish)                              Force;
An action against the Commission of the European                            7. The agreement concerning Interciment;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de                               8 . The concerted practices ^s regards Calcestruzzi;
Fabricantes de Espana ('Oficemen'), represented by Jaime                    9 . The concerted practices as regards ECEC.
Folguera Crespo and Ramon Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              III. Infringement of Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation No 17 on
of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                                     the following grounds:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1 . Inadmissibility of imposing general penalties;
— annul           Commission       Decision     94/815/EC        of         2 . Erroneous assessment of the duration of the
    30 November 1984,                                                           infringements;
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 (2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 (2 ),        3 . Erroneous assessment of the gravity of the
    4 ( 3 ) (a ), 5 and 9 of the aforementioned Decision, in so                 infringements;
    far as those Articles refer to Oficemen,
                                                                            4. Breach of the principle 'non bis in idem'.
— as a subsidiary plea, annul the fine imposed on Oficemen
    in Article 9 of the Decision or reduce the amount of the           IV. Misapplication of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b) of Regulation (EEC)
    same ,                                                                  No 2988/74: the alleged offences are time-barred.
— order the Commission to pay the costs, expressly
    including the expenses of lodging and maintaining the
    security for the fine.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Irish Cement Ltd
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant relies upon the following grounds in support                                   (Case T-60/95 )
of its claims :                                                                               ( 95/C 119/45 )
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:                                     (Language of the case: English)
      1 . Incomplete notification of the Statement of
            Objections, limited access to the file and exclusion       An action against the Commission of the European
            from the hearings;                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
      2. Inadequate access to the file;                                1995 by Irish Cement Ltd, represented by Mr. John D.
                                                                       Cooke and Mr John Glackin with and address for service in
      3 . Absence of a statement of reasons for the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Etude Faltz & associés, 6,
            'abandonment' of national objections;                      rue Heinrich Heine, L-1720 Luxembourg.
      4. Failure to consult the Advisory Committee;                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      5 . Inconsistency between the objections and the                 — declare under Article 174 that the Commission's
            Decision;                                                      Decision of 30 November 1994 is void,