CELEX: C1995/119/37
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-51/95)

No C 119/16             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
      (c ) the exchange of information on prices;                    — in the alternative, annul Article 9 of that decision in so
                                                                         far as it imposes the fine on the applicant,
      (d ) the agreement to set up a 'European Task
            Force ';                                                 — reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the
                                                                         applicant;
      (e ) the agreement to set up a 'Joint Trading
            Company';
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs,
      ( f) the agreement and certain concerted practices
            adopted to protect the Italian market;                   — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
                                                                         costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the
      (g) the alleged concerted practices within the                     administrative procedure,
            European Cement Export Committee ( ECEC).
                                                                     — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
III. As regards the fine, the applicant claims that:                     costs incurred in providing a security for the payment of
                                                                         the fine payable under the Decision.
      (a ) Unicem did not possess the degree of knowledge
            attributed to it by the Commission: its conduct
            could not have been 'intentional';                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the time for prosecuting some of the infringements       The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
            imputed to Unicem had expired; others were not           its application:
            charged against Unicem in the Statement of
            Objections; some could not have been of the              1 . Serious infringement of the rights of the defence and of
            alleged duration;                                             procedural rules as follows:
      (c ) the infringements allegedly committed by Unicem                ( a ) inconsistency between the charges and the
            are much less serious than the Commission                           Decision;
            considers; there has been a breach of the principle
            of proportionality and of the principle of equal              ( b ) insufficiently specific and incomplete charges;
            treatment;
      ( d ) the fine has been calculated on various erroneous             (c ) failure to give the applicant a reasonable period in
            bases, which creates substantial disparity in                       which to submit its observations in its defence;
            treatment .
                                                                          ( d ) failure to forward to the Consultative Committee
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                       essential and relevant parts of the draft Decision.
                                                                     2 . Infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                         result of erroneous or inadequate assessment and legal
                                                                         characterization of the facts .
Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 3 . Breach of the principle personal liability.
                          Case T-51/95 )
                                                                    4. Breach of the principle ne bis in idem.
                          ( 95/C 119/37)
                                                                    5 . Breach of the principle in dubio pro reo.
                 (Language of the case: ltalian)
                                                                     6. Infringement of Articles 1 ( b ) and 2 ( 3 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 of 26 November
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         1974 .
Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA, whose registered office is at           7. Infringement of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by Messrs Brosio                  No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 inasmuch as:
and Pavesio, of the Turin Bar, Dr Crescenza, of the Rome
Bar, and Dr. Ceraolo, of the Turin Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Faltz,                       (a ) sales not relating to the preceding financial year
                                                                                were taken into account;
Avocat, 6 Rue Heine .
                                                                         ( b) the subjective element was not considered;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in whole or in part the Decision of the                          (c ) the duration and seriousness of the infringement
    Commission 94/815/EC (IV/33.126 and 33.322 —                                were incorrectly assessed.
    Cement) ( a ) of 30 November 1994 in so far as concerns
    the applicant,                                                  8 . Breach of the principle of equal treatment.
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/17
9 . Breach of the principle of proportionality.                          7. A new objection, not contained in the Statement of
                                                                              Objections, was made;
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
                                                                         8 . Irregular consulting of the Advisory Committee.
                                                                     II. Errors in interpreting the evidence available and
                                                                         undervaluation of the evidence favourable to the
                                                                         applicant:
    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Comparua
     Valenciana de Cementos Portland SA against the                      1 , as regards the so-called 'Cembureau Agreement',
          Commission of the European Communities                              the Decision failed to take account of the fact that
                        ( Case T-52/95 )                                      the applicant is not a member of 'Cembureau';
                          95/C 119/38
                                                                         2 , as regards the participation of the applicant in the
                                                                              'European     Export     Policy   Committee',      the
                (Language of tbe case: Spanish)                               Commission      failed  to   take  account    of the
                                                                              non-participation of the applicant as from 1986,
An action against the Commission of the European                              when it began to concentrate all its exports in the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             USA; neither did it demonstrate the connection
Instance on 22 February 1995 by Compania Valenciana de                        between cooperation for exporting to non-member
Cementos Portland SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                        countries and the rule of respecting national
Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustarnente Kôster, of the Madrid                        markets;
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue,                                    3 , as regards the applicant's participation in the
                                                                              'White Cement Committee ', the Decision failed to
                                                                              take into account the fact that there is no evidence
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  whatsoever that the meetings at which the
                                                                              applicant was present adopted or applied any
— declare in whole or in part Articles 1 to 11 of                             rule of respecting national markets and that
    Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994
                                                                              cooperation between the members of the
    to be void as far as the applicant is concerned,                          Committee did not give rise, at least in so far as the
                                                                              applicant is concerned, to any solidarity.
— in the alternative, alter Articles 9 and 10 of the
    aforementioned Decision so as to reduce the amount of
    the fine imposed on Compania Valenciana, and                    III. Misapplication of Article 85 of the EC Treaty to the
                                                                         facts in issue through the finding that, through
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                cooperation over exports to non-member countries,
                                                                         the supply of Community production surpluses was
                                                                         hindered, without the effect on Community trade as a
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         result of such cooperation being established.
The applicant relies upon the following grounds:
                                                                    IV. As regards the fine, the applicant argues that its amount
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements during                  is excessive since the Decision failed to take into
      examination of the file before the Commission and                  account the mitigating circumstances in its favour
      once the Decision was adopted . Those defects, which               which would have justified a significantly reduced
      prevented the applicant from defending itself                      fine .
      adequately against the objections raised against it, are
      as follows :
      1 . Improper notification of the decision;
      2 . The objections raised were not sufficiently
           precise;                                                    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by The Rugby
                                                                        Group pic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                             Communities
      3 . Inadequate notification of the Statement of
           Objections and inadequate access to the file;                                   (Case T-53/95 )
                                                                                            ( 95/C 119/39 )
     4. Absence of a real table of documents;
      5 . Breach of the fundamental right to the heard;                            (Language of the case: English)
      6 . Absence of a complete translation of the Statement       An action against the Commission of the European
           of Objections, the documents cited therein and the       Communities was brought before the Court of First
           minutes of the hearing;                                  Instance of the European Communities on 22 February by