CELEX: C1998/209/67
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV (formerly Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV) v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Rights of the defence - Proof of participation in collusion - Information exchange - Order - Fine - Statement of reasons - Determination of the amount - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/31
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                   agreement or concerted practice which may have the
     claims.                                                            same or a similar object or effect, including any
                                                                        exchange of commercial information:
3. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     one-half of the Commission's costs.                                a) by which the participants are directly or indirectly
                                                                            informed of the production, sales, order backlog,
                                                                            machine utilisation rates, selling prices, costs or
4. Orders the Commission to bear one-half of its own                        marketing plans of other individual producers.
     costs.
                                                                        Any scheme for the exchange of general information
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
                                                                        to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its
                                                                        successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any
                                                                        information from which the behaviour of individual
                                                                        producers can be identified.'.
                                                                    3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 730 000.
                       of 14 May 1998
in Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG v.                   4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                      claims.
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of             5. Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their
the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Products                            own costs.
                concerned by the infringement)
                         (98/C 209/66)                              (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Gernsbach-Obertsrot, Germany, represented
by Holger-Friedrich Wissel and Joachim Schütze,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                                 of 14 May 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                    in Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV (formerly
Goethe v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV) v. Commission of the
(Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk
                                                                                      European Communities (1)
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a                    (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Rights
proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/                 of the defence Ð Proof of participation in collusion Ð
33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð                Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Statement of
the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),                    reasons Ð Determination of the amount Ð Cooperation
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.                      during the administrative procedure)
BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                    (98/C 209/67)
given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                  In Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV, formerly
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85         Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV, established at
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).                  Appingedam, Netherlands, represented by Alexandre
                                                                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, and Gordon Boyd
                                                                    Buchanan Jeffrey, Solicitor, Liverpool, with an address for
2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
     paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                    Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of
     601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Lyal
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
                                                                    and Rosemary Caudwell, then subsequently Richard Lyal
     Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:
                                                                    and James Flynn) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                    Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating
     The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
     bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the
     already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
     relation to their cartonboard activities from any              of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt,
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                     of 14 May 1998
judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-317/94: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of                   (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
    Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994                   Concept of agreement Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Determination
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             of the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Mitigating
    Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the                                       circumstances)
    date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
    against it is stated to be prior to April 1989.                                           (98/C 209/68)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: German)
2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
    Article 1 of Decision 94/601/EC.
                                                                    In Case T-317/94: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                    established at Mayen, Germany, represented by Thomas
3. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth            Jestaett, Karsten Metzlaff and Hanns-Christian Salger,
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Decision 94/601/EC save              Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Frankfurt-am-
    and except the following passages:                              Main, the also by Verena von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin,
                                                                    Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith            Hardt v. Commission of the European Communities
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not         (Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in               Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any               Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the              proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
    same or a similar object or effect, including any               33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð
    exchange of commercial information:                             the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.
                                                                    BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
    (a) by which the participants are directly or                   Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order       given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
          producers.                                                1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of
                                                                         Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
                                                                         relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information                   Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its             date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any                   against it is stated to be prior to March 1988.
    information from which the behaviour of individual
    producers can be identified.'.
                                                                    2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
                                                                         paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                         601/EC save and except the following passages:
4. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
    by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 750 000.
                                                                         The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
                                                                         bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
5. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in
    claims.                                                              relation to their cartonboard activities from any
                                                                         agreement or concerted practice which may have the
                                                                         same or a similar object or effect, including any
6. Orders the Commission to bear its costs and to pay                    exchange of commercial information:
    one-half of the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                               indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
7. Orders the applicant to bear one-half of its own costs.                     backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
                                                                               costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                               producers.
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                         Any scheme for the exchange of general information
                                                                         to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its