CELEX: C1995/119/47
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Italcementi SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-65/95)

No C 119/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
IV.  Fines                                                           — annul the Commission's Decision of 23 September 1993
                                                                         (mentioned in the Commission's letter of 27 September
     1 . Failure to provide adequate reasons to explain why              1993 ), where it provides for the closure of the
         the applicant should be fined .                                 international part of the proceeding in relation to the
                                                                         12 German undertakings and six Spanish undertakings
     2. Breach of the principle of natural justice and of                therein specified,
         Regulation No 17/62, by imposing a huge fine on
         the applicant, without adequately establishing any          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
         fault on the part of the company.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     3 . Breach of the principles of proportionality, natural        The action is based on the following grounds :
         justice and equal treatment.
                                                                       I. Infringement of procedural rules
 V. Duration
                                                                           1 . Infringement of the rights of the defence :
     1 . Manifest error of assessment in holding that the                      The applicant argues that the Commission has
         applicant was party for 11 years to a 'single and                     infringed a number of fundamental rights of the
         continuous agreement' with other producers, when                      defence, particularly the right to be heard and the
         the Decision itself alleges that other producers had                  right of access to the file .
         reached agreement among themselves to take
         various actions against the applicant during that                 2. Breach of the principle of the protection of
         period.                                                               legitimate expectations and the principle of
                                                                               non-discrimination. Inconsistency with a previous
     2 . Incorrect determination of the duration of the                        decision .
         alleged infringement, without regard to the                       3 . The formulation of new objections in the
         statistical, commercial and technical evidence                        Decision .
         indicating that the applicant at least was not party
         to any infringement during the relevant period.                  4. Non-observance of the time limits applicable to the
                                                                               Commission's action .
(M Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement.
                                                                           5 . Defective adoption/authentication of the decision.
                                                                      II. Misapplication of Article 85 of the Treaty. The
                                                                          applicant argues that the accusations against it are
                                                                           unfounded, and that the Commission has misapplied
                                                                           Community law, especially Article 85 of the Treaty; its
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Italcementi SpA                     position is based on the following grounds:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-65/95 )                                     1 . The relevant geographical market was erroneously
                                                                               defined .
                        ( 95/C 119/47)
                                                                           2. Article 85 did not apply in the absence of a
                (Language of the case: Italian                                 competitive situation.
                                                                           3 . There was no           'single    and    continuous
An action against the Commission of the European                               infringement'.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                       4. The conduct of the applicant in relation to:
1995 by Italcementi SpA, whose registered office is in                         ( a ) the 'Cembureau' agreement;
Bergamo (Italy), represented by André Faures of the Brussels
Bar, Cesare Lanciani of the Milan Bar, Albertu Predieri of                     ( b ) the 'European Task Force';
the Florence Bar, Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar,
Francesca Moretti of the Bologna Bar, and Giulio Rizza of                      (c) the 'European Cement Export Committee';
                                                                                     and
the Siracuse Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15, Côte                        (d ) the 'White Cement Committee';
d'Eich, Luxembourg.
                                                                               could not be regarded as infringing Article 85 of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Treaty.
                                                                     III. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. The
— annul in whole or in part Commission Decision                           applicant argues that the Commission has seriously
    94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a                           infringed Article 190 of the Treaty, in particular
    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases                  because :
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) ( x ), in so far as it concerns the
    applicant,                                                             1 , the Decision of 30 November 1994 is vitiated both
                                                                               by inconsistency between the statement of reasons
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed                        and the operative part and by an insufficient
    upon the applicant,                                                        statement of reasons; and
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95          LEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/25
      2 , no reasons whatever were given for the Decision of          Michael Esser-Wellié, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an
           23 September 1993 to close the proceeding in               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
           relation to 12 German undertakings and six                 & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
           Spanish undertakings .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
IV. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the fine
                                                                      — annul the defendant's Decision of 30 November 1994
      imposed should be reduced for infringement of
      Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 as regards:                 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty (IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), notified to
       1 , the gravity and duration of the infringement;                  the applicant on 3 February 1995 , in so far as that
           and                                                            Decision relates to the applicant,
      2 , the calculation of the amount of the fine .                 — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
                                                                          applicant to such amount as the Court may
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                 determine,
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek
against the Council of the European Union and the                      I. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           formal law:
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-67/95 )                                  1 . The defendant infringed essential procedural
                           ( 95/C 119/48 )                                     requirements by granting the applicant only partial
                                                                               access to documents during the administrative
                (Language of the case: German)                                 proceeding and no access whatever after the
                                                                               adoption of the Decision . The defendant based its
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        Decision on documents with which the applicant
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                         was unacquainted and also failed to translate
before the Court of First Instance of the European                             foreign-language evidence .
Communities on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek,                        2. The defendant failed to comply with the
Grefrath-Mulhausen (Federal Republic of Germany),                              Community-law requirements regarding evidence
represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                           and made findings of fact in respect of complex sets
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                      of individual circumstances and periods of time
of Dupong & Associés, 14A, Rue des Bains .                                     which were unsupported by evidence, or at any rate
                                                                               were supported by insufficient evidence.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           3 . The defendant provided inadequate and
— order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation                       contradictory reasons for its Decision and based it
     for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the                on findings which were both unsubstantiated and
     amount of DM 46 412,01 , together with 8 % interest                       incapable of verification.
     thereon from 1 July 1985 .
                                                                           4 . The calculation of the fine is defective since the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            defendant wrongly proceeds on the basis of a
                                                                               particularly serious infringement, assumes that the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                    alleged infringement lasted for an excessively long
Case T-20/94 .                                                                 period of time and calculates the fine on the basis
                                                                               of an incaccurate turnover figure and reference
                                                                               period .
                                                                               By committing these breaches, the Commission
                                                                               infringed the principle of equal treatment in
   Action brought on 25 February 1995 by Holderbank                            contradictory proceedings as well as the principles
       Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft against the                        of a fair hearing and due process.
          Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-68/95 )                              II. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           substantive law:
                           ( 95/C 119/49 )
                                                                           1 , ( a ) The applicant contests the defendant's
                (Language of tbe case: German)                                       allegations regarding the European Task Force
                                                                                     and its incompatibility with Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                     EC Treaty. The applicant takes particular issue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    with the defendant's claim that the European
Instance of the European Communities on 25 February                                  Task Force remains active up to the present
1995 by Holderbank Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft,                             day: on the contrary, that body ceased activity
Jona ( Switzerland), represented by Cornelis Canenbley and                           at the end of May 1987.