CELEX: C1999/136/37
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-56/99: Action brought on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA against the Commission of the European Communities

15.5.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 136/17
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                        Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris Group
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Enterprises SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
                         (Case T-56/99)                                                           (Case T-59/99)
                        (1999/C 136/37)                                                          (1999/C 136/38)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Group Enterprises SA whose registered office is in Panama,
European Communities on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                  represented by Maria Proestou and Maria Velmakhou, of the
whose registered office is in Monrovia, Liberia, represented by          Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Dimitrios Papatheofanous, of the Athens Bar, with an address             Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas (J. P.          L-2010 Luxembourg.
Lorang SA) route de Trèves, L-1010 Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claim that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                             relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
— annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998                           (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
    (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);                                     — in the alternative, amend the contested decision in the
                                                                             applicant’s favour so that any fine imposed on it is the
                                                                             lowest provided for;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         — in the further alternative, amend the contested decision in
                                                                             the applicant’s favour to take account of the extenuating
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     circumstances put forward;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The applicant, being a management company, did not
    have the power to enter into an agreement on prices
    with competing companies and for that reason did not                 Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    participate in discussions of that nature or send documents
    to the other companies accepting their views on the                  — The fact that the Commission found that the applicant was
    carriage charges.                                                        party together with other companies to an agreement or
                                                                             agreements for the joint setting of the carriage charge for
                                                                             lorries is attributable to an error by the Commission in
— The pricing policy which the applicant pursued during the                  assessing the submissions made, and the evidence adduced,
    period at issue was independent and different from that of               by the applicant. If the Commission had not erred in that
    the other companies.                                                     way, it would have accepted that the applicant had no
                                                                             reason at all to be party to agreement or agreements of
                                                                             such a kind.
— While the Commission accepts in Article 1(2) of the
    contested decision that the applicant was not in any way
    party to agreements amounting to infringements of Article            — The Commission erred in its assessment both of the factors
    85 (1) of the Treaty, it finds in Article 1(2), in vague terms           selected by it and of the submissions put forward, and
    and mistakenly, that the applicant infringed that provision.             evidence adduced, by the applicant in finding that the
                                                                             applicant was party with other companies to an agreement
                                                                             for the joint setting of the carriage charges for the
— The Commission manifestly erred as to the facts, and either                Patras-Bari route.
    the contested decision lacks reasoning so far as concerns
    the applicant or its reasoning is inadequate.                        — Even if it is accepted that specific documents taken into
                                                                             account by the Commission show the applicant was party
                                                                             to an agreement or agreements contrary to Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty, those documents were not obtained lawfully
                                                                             by the Commission, and thus must be disregarded by the
                                                                             Court of First Instance.