CELEX: C2002/144/116
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-125/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG against Commission of the European Communities

C 144/60               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August                   other cases in which the Commission took a crisis situation
Koehler AG against Commission of the European Com-                       into account as a mitigating circumstance. The Commission
                             munities                                    further failed to take into account, and recognise by a reduction
                                                                         of the fine, the applicant’s cooperation with the Commission
                                                                         during the procedure.
                         (Case T-125/02)
                        (2002/C 144/116)                                 Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission did not
                                                                         make the entire documentation of the investigation available
                                                                         to the applicant. The applicant’s right to a fair hearing was
                   (Language of the case: German)                        thereby infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik
August Koehler AG, of Oberkirch (Germany), represented by
I. Brinker, lawyer.                                                      Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpapiere
                                                                           AG against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-126/02)
—     Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001
      in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper;                                                 (2002/C 144/117)
—     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 of                           (Language of the case: German)
      the decision;
—     Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpa-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          piere AG, of Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                         J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers.
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA              — Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and                         ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper,
concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-                 in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 29,76 million on the
tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,                     applicant;
allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-           —     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
ments.                                                                         applicant by Article 3 of the decision;
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant concedes that it took part in such a cartel, but
only from October 1993. It further submits that in determining
the fine the Commission did not take proper account of the
size of the undertakings concerned. In terms of economic                 Pleas in law and main arguments
capability, the applicant was hit much harder by the fine
imposed than the other undertakings fined. The Commission
thereby infringed the principle of proportionality.                      By the contested decision the Commission found that the
                                                                         applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed
                                                                         Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA
The applicant further submits that, although the applicant was           Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and
occasioned to take part in the cartel by threats, the Commission         concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-
refused to regard that as a mitigating circumstance. Moreover,           tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,
the Commission did not take note of the fact that the applicant          allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
was occasioned to take part in the cartel as a result of a specific      lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-
crisis situation. Therein lay unequal treatment compared to              ments.