CELEX: C2002/068/23
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-314/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten "AVEBE" B.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 68/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.3.2002
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Jungbunzlauer                     With regard to the fine imposed, the applicant asserts, inter
AG against the Commission of the European Com-                          alia, that the Commission, when fixing the amount of the fine,
                             munities                                   failed to take account of the size of the undertakings concerned,
                                                                        and likewise failed to pay sufficient regard to the economic
                                                                        significance of the infringement. The Commission thereby
                         (Case T-312/01)                                violated the principle of proportionality, its own guidelines
                                                                        and its own practice. Furthermore, it committed an error of
                                                                        assessment by refusing to take into account the fact that fines
                          (2002/C 68/22)                                had already been imposed in the USA and Canada in respect
                                                                        of the same facts.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Finally, the applicant claims that its right to be heard in
                                                                        accordance with the law has been violated, since the Com-
                                                                        mission did not give it access to the entire investigation file. In
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               addition, the protracted length of the procedure had a twofold
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              effect on the content of the decision, inasmuch as the latest
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Jung-                       turnover figures were taken as the applicable basis and because
bunzlauer AG, of Basle, represented by Rainer Bechtold,                 the decision was not issued until after there had been a
Matthias Karl and Ulrich Soltész, lawyers.                              substantial tightening of the Commission’s practice in the
                                                                        imposition of fines, which significantly prejudiced the appli-
                                                                        cant’s position.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2001
      (Case COM/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate);
—     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of the
      decision;                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve
                                                                        Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                            European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-314/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                 (2002/C 68/23)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
applicant and five other undertakings had participated in a
continuous and/or concerted practice in the sodium gluconate
sector and had thereby infringed Article 81(1) EC. Fines were
imposed on those undertakings.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatie-
The applicant is contesting that decision and asserts that it was       ve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
directed to the wrong addressee, inasmuch as it was only                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A., established at Veendam (Netherlands),
Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH, an associate company of the               represented by Cornelis Titus Dekker, with an address for
applicant, which had participated in the acts contrary to cartel        service in Luxembourg.
law described in the decision.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly assumed
that the infringement did not cease until 1995. Moreover, the
                                                                        —      annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 2931 of
Commission has not conclusively shown that the applicant, or
                                                                               2 October 2001;
its associated company, had played the role of ‘ringleader’ —
on which ground the basic amount of the fine was wrongly
increased by 50 %.                                                      —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 68/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed Othman, represent-
                                                                           ed by Ms Fiona Lindsley of Birnberg Peirce & Partners, London
                                                                           (United Kingdom)
The applicant has since 1993 been the sole owner of Glucona
B.V., a company producing sodium gluconate. Glucona had
previously been a joint venture between the applicant and its              The applicant claims that the Court should:
then partner. Glucona was involved in a cartel concerning the
sale of sodium gluconate. The contested decision orders the                —     Annul Council Regulation 467/2001 and Commission
applicant to pay a fine in that regard.                                          Regulation 2062/2001.
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads, primarily,
failure to comply with essential procedural requirements. In
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
particular, it asserts that its rights of defence have been violated
and that an insufficient statement of reasons was given. Thus,
the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on                   The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Jordan and
the statements made about the applicant by another party                   lawfully residing in the United Kingdom, challenges Council
involved in the investigation.
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 and Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001, amending, for the third
                                                                           time, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting
The applicant further pleads infringement of Article 81(1) EC
                                                                           the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 (1). According to the
                                                                           strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds
applicant, the conduct of Glucona during the period from
                                                                           and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of
1987 and 1993 cannot be attributed to it. During that period
                                                                           Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (1).
the applicant’s partner in Glucona was responsible for sales
                                                                           The applicant is named in Regulation (EC) 2062/2001.
policy and the applicant itself had no information whatever in
that regard. It was not until 1993, when the applicant obtained
total control over Glucona, that it was made aware of the
                                                                           According to the applicant, the Council and the Commission
cartel and was thus placed in a position of responsibility
                                                                           have misused their powers conferred by Article 60 and 301
therefor.
                                                                           EC Treaty in adopting the Regulations in question. Further-
                                                                           more, the applicant contends that the Regulations violate his
                                                                           human rights, specifically Articles 3 and 8 of the European
Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
                                                                           Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the applicant claims
proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission failed to take
                                                                           that the measures are disproportionate and in violation of the
account of the purely passive role played by the applicant in
                                                                           principle of subsidiarity.
the cartel until 1993.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.
(1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85
    and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
    p. 87).
                                                                           Action brought on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
                                                                           Frères S.A. against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed                                                   Communities
Othman against the Council of the European Union and
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-322/01)
                          (Case T-318/01)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 68/25)
                           (2002/C 68/24)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                European Communities on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Frères S.A., established at Lestrem (France), represented by
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Antoine Choffel and Olivier Prost, lawyers.