CELEX: C2002/169/65
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-129/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA against the Commission of the European Communities

13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 169/37
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA                         The Commission has also breached Article 15(2) of Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      17/62 in that it has wrongly classed the alleged infringement
                                                                          as ‘very serious’. Firstly, in defining the alleged cartel as ‘price
                                                                          fixing market sharing practices’, the Commission seeks to
                         (Case T-129/02)                                  confer a disproportionate importance on the alleged market
                                                                          allocation practices, misrepresenting their gravity. Secondly,
                                                                          in classing the alleged infringement as ‘very serious’, the
                        (2002/C 169/65)                                   Commission does not take account of the difference between
                                                                          agreements fixing prices, which lead to uniform prices, and
                                                                          other price agreements, which do not lead to uniform prices.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Moreover, the Commission has failed properly to examine the
                                                                          relative gravity of the infringement allegedly committed by the
                                                                          applicant. In short, the defendant has failed to take into
                                                                          consideration the fact that the applicant, as it claims, did not
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 apply the price increases allegedly fixed and thus defeated the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                anti-competitive effects of the alleged cartel; in addition the
                                                                          Commission wrongly assessed the effective capacity of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA,
represented by Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Francisco Cantos                 applicant to cause damage to competition.
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels (Belgium).
                                                                          (1) Not yet published in the OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 1 of the contested Decision in so far as it
      establishes an infringement of Article 81, paragraph 1, of
      the Treaty by the applicant in the period from 1 January
      1992 to September 1993; and reduce the fine accord-
      ingly;                                                              Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH
                                                                          & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
—     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
      the applicant in Article 3 of the contested Decision;
                                                                                                    (Case T-130/02)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2002/C 169/66)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
case T-109/02 Bolloré/Commission (1). By this Decision, the               European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly
Defendant found that the applicant and ten other manufac-                 GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengrabe (Germany), represented by
turers of carbonless paper had infringed Article 81(1) of the             R. Nierer, lawyer.
EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by
participating in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices by which they fixed price increases, allocated sales            The applicant claims that the Court should:
quotas and fixed market shares and set up machinery to
monitor the implementation of the restrictive agreements.                 —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2002 not
                                                                                to correct the decision of 3 July 2001 on planned aid
                                                                                No N 813/2000;
In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that the
Commission has wrongly applied Article 81(1) of the Treaty                —     order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
and violated the principle of presumption of innocence, as                      those of the applicant.
well as an essential procedural requirement, as it has not
sufficiently proven that the applicant committed an infringe-
ment of the above-mentioned provision from January 1992
until September 1993. It is stressed in this regard that such an          Pleas in law and main arguments
approach does not mean that the applicant would recognise
that there was an infringement concerning the period there-
after. It has however chosen not to lodge an appeal against the           In the contested decision, the Commission established a
entire decision of the Commission.                                        competitive factor of 0,75 in respect of the notified aid. In the