CELEX: C2001/161/46
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-58/01: Action brought on 12 March 2001 by Solvay SA against the Commission of the European Communities

C 161/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
On 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted a decision (4)              As to the substance, the applicant submits that the Commission
finding that the applicant had infringed Article 86 of the EEC          infringed Article 82 EC by the manner in which it defined the
Treaty by acting in a manner intended to exclude or to limit            geographical market without taking account of the real
competition very severely, by, inter alia, concluding agreements        conditions of competition and that the applicant did not hold
with customers requiring them to obtain supplies from the               a dominant position within the meaning of that article on the
applicant. In that decision, the Commission imposed on the              soda-ash market.
applicant a fine of EUR 20 million.
                                                                        As regards the Commission’s view that the applicant resorted
                                                                        to various practices all designed to bring about exclusion, the
                                                                        applicant contends that that view is not supported by the facts
The applicant seeks the annulment of that decision.                     and is wrong in law. Furthermore, the Commission did not
                                                                        give a proper statement of its reasons for its decision.
                                                                        In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment of the
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the            fines imposed or reduction thereof. It contends that the
Commission did not take account of the passage of time.                 Commission’s power to impose fines on the applicant had
The five-year limitation period, which was suspended while              been extinguished by the time the contested decision was
proceedings for annulment were pending before the Court of              adopted, and therefore the Commission infringed Article 15
First Instance, ended in January 2000. Therefore, in the                of Regulation No 17. Moreover, it did not properly assess the
applicant’s view, the Commission adopted a decision at a time           gravity and duration of the infringement and failed to take
when its power to impose fines had been time-barred for many            account of extenuating circumstances. Finally, the amount of
months. The applicant also considers that the Commission                the fine is excessive and disproportionate and takes no account
infringed the applicant’s right to have a decision against it           of the passage of time.
taken within a reasonable period, in view of the fact that the
conduct imputed to the applicant occurred from 1983 to the
end of 1990.
                                                                        (1) Commission Decision 91/299/EEC of 19.12.1990 (IV/33.133-C:
                                                                            Soda-ash — Solvay), OJ 1991 L 152, p. 21.
                                                                        (2) Case T-32/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1825.
                                                                        (3) Judgment of 6.4.2000 in Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95
According to the applicant, a decision was adopted before a                 P Commission v Solvay [2000] ECR I-2391.
meeting of the members of the Commission. The applicant                 (4) Commission Decision of 13.12.2000 relating to a procedure
alleges infringement of the principle of collegiality and of the            under Article 82 EC (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay.
principle of legal certainty.
Moreover, in its view, the contested decision infringed essential
procedural requirements which should have been fulfilled
before its adoption, the applicant’s rights of defence and its
right to be heard. The Commission cannot rely on the
administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the
decision of December 1990, since that procedure was vitiated            Action brought on 12 March 2001 by Solvay SA against
in numerous ways and the applicant should have been granted                    the Commission of the European Communities
a hearing allowing it to submit its observations.
                                                                                                  (Case T-58/01)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 161/46)
According to the applicant, the Commission did not reopen
the administrative procedure which preceded adoption of
Decision 91/299 and did not receive a fresh statement of
objections and, therefore, was unable to respond to those                                  (Language of the case: French)
objections. By readopting, practically word for word, a decision
dating from 1990, disregarding, amongst things, the passage
of time, the contradictory positions taken by the Commission            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on matters essential to appraisal of the case and evidence in           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 12 March
defence put forward by the applicant in the intervening                 2001 by Solvay SA, established in Brussels, represented by
period, the Commission infringed the principles of sound                Lucien Simont, Paul Alain Foriers, Guy Block Frédéric Louis
administration, impartial examination and proportionality.              and Anne Vallery, Lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/23
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:           As regards the alleged infringement which, according to the
                                                                        Commission extended from 1987 to at least the end of 1990,
                                                                        the applicant contends that the Commission did not give
—    find that the action taken against it was time-barred;             reasons to show, and did not show, that the alleged agreement
                                                                        was capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member
                                                                        States and that the infringement of Article 81 EC was not
—    in any event, annul the Commission Decision of                     established.
     13 December 2000 relating to a procedure under
     Article 81 of the Treaty (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash —
     Solvay, CFK);
                                                                        (1) Commission Decision 91/298/EEC of 19.12.1990 (IV/33.133-B:
                                                                            Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK), OJ L 152, 1991, p. 16.
                                                                        (2) Case T-31/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] II-1821.
—    find that the power to impose fines is time-barred;
                                                                        (3) Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P Commission v Solvay
                                                                            [2000] ECR I-2391.
                                                                        (4) Commission Decision of 13.12.2000 relating to a procedure
—    in any event, annul Article 2 of the contested decision, in            under Article 81 EC (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK).
     so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 3 million on the
     applicant;
—    declare that no fine should be imposed on the applicant
     or, at the very least, that the fine should be substantially
     reduced;
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Spyridon de
                                                                        Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                             of the European Union
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                                  (Case T-73/01)
The applicant is a company incorporated under Belgian law,                                       (2001/C 161/47)
which operates in the soda-ash sector through marketing
outlets in nine countries in Europe.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
On 19 December 1990, the Commission adopted Decision
91/298/EEC (1) finding that the applicant had participated in a         An action against the Committee of the Regions of the
market-sharing agreement under which it guaranteed CFK a                European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance
minimum annual tonnage of soda-ash sales in Germany and                 of the European Communities on 22 March 2001 by Spyridon
compensated CFK for any shortfall by purchasing from it the             de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Brussels, represented by
tonnages necessary to bring its sales up to the guaranteed              Marc-Albert Lucas, Lawyer.
minimum, and imposed on the applicant a fine of ECU 3 milli-
on. Proceedings for the annulment of that initial decision were
brought before the Court of First Instance. By judgment of
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
29 June 1995, the Court of First Instance annulled the
decision (2). The Commission’s appeal against that judgment
was dismissed by the Court of Justice. (3)                              —     annul the decision of 13 June 2000 of the Bureau of the
                                                                              Committee of the Regions of the European Union to
                                                                              appoint a third party as Secretary-General of the Com-
                                                                              mittee of the Regions;
On the 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted a
decision (4), in which the infringements already referred to in
the initial decision were imputed to the applicant. In that             —     annul the relevant decision of 13 June 2000 of the Bureau
decision, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant of                   of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union
EUR 3 million.                                                                to reject the applicant’s application for that post, which
                                                                              was notified to him by letter of 22 June 2000 from the
                                                                              President of the Bureau;
The applicant seeks annulment of that decision relying, for the
most part, on the arguments put forward in Case T-57/01.                —     order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.