CELEX: C1998/299/26
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-283/98 P)

C 299/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.9.98
Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                       2.    incorrectly held that its own conclusion that the
Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May                         Commission had failed to prove all the alleged effects
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the                     of the infringement could not materially affect its
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                      assessment of the gravity of the infringement and
Case T-352/94 (1) between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag                          thus could not lead to a reduction in the fine.
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-283/98 P)                             (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994, p. 8.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
                          (98/C 299/26)                               (3) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
                                                                          Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
                                                                          (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                          Appeal brought on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
Aktiebolag, whose registered address is at S-89180                    Bergslags AB against the judgment delivered on 14 May
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
and Martin Smith, Solicitors, of Simmons & Simmons,                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Case T-354/94 (1) between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias                        AB and the Commission of the European Communities
Hardt.
                                                                                              (Case C-286/98 P)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                     (98/C 299/27)
(i)   annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
      14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 at least in part;                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
(ii) annul Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July                   Case T-354/94 between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
      1994 relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of             and the Commission of the European Communities, was
      the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) in so             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      far as it relates to the appellant at least in part;            Communities on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                      Bergslags AB, whose registered address is at S-79180
                                                                      Falun, Sweden, represented by Alexander Riesenkampff
(iii) cancel or at least reduce the amount of the fine                and Stefan Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, of Hasche Eschenlohr
      imposed on the Appellant;                                       Peltzer Riesenkampff Fischötter, Brussels, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz,
                                                                      Faltz & Kremer, 6, rue Heinrich Heine.
(iv) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs
      before this Court and before the Court of First
      Instance.
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94 and annul
The appellant relies on grounds of appeal based on an                      Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
infringement of Community law in particular of                             relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of the EC
Articles 85, 172, 173 and 190 of the EC Treaty and of                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) because the
Council Regulation No 17 (3) and of the general principles                 Court of First Instance's conclusions were made on the
of Community law.                                                          basis of substantive errors of Community law which:
The appellant raises grounds of appeal including that the                  (i)   infringe Articles 85 and 15(2) of Council
Court of First Instance:                                                         Regulation No 17 (3) in that the appellant is held
                                                                                 responsible for the conduct of its subsidiaries
                                                                                 Kopparfors, Feldmühle and CBC without regard
1.    incorrectly held that the Commission's failure to set
                                                                                 to the legal criteria developed by the European
      out in the decision the factors of which it had
                                                                                 Courts and the Commission for the imputation
      systematically taken account when fixing the
                                                                                 of infringements committed by subsidiaries;
      appellant's fine was not an infringement of the duty
      to state reasons such as would justify annulment in
      whole or in part of the decision and of the fine                     (ii)  infringe the rules regarding the burden of proof
      imposed;                                                                   in that, with respect to the imputation of the