CELEX: C2007/223/08
Language: en
Date: 2007-09-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-338/07 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 2007 by Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission , T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission , T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission , T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission , T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission , T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission , T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission , T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission , and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

22.9.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/7
            
         Appeal brought on 20 July 2007 by Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission, and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
   
   (Case C-338/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present action admissible and well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested judgment in full or in part on the ground of all, or some, of the legal grounds set out below is so far as it affects the appellant, and draw from the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences, whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed by Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (1), which is being appealed against;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs of the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the action for annulment proceedings relating to the contested judgment.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
               1.
            
            
               Infringement of the right to a fair hearing in relation to the assessment of the alleged participation in certain meetings of the cartel on the Spanish market and participation in a European cartel.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Infringement of the presumption of innocence in respect of the assessment of the alleged infringements as a result of circumstantial evidence.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Infringement of Community law in connection with the disproportionate and unfair nature of the fine in respect of its severity, its calculation and the application of attenuating circumstances, and a lack of reasoning in the assessment of certain attenuating circumstances.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Infringement of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable period of time.
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1.