CELEX: C1995/189/15
Language: en
Date: 1995-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 2 May 1995 by Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, against the judgment delivered on 21 February 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-472/93 between Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, intervener (Case C-138/95 P)

No C 189/8             lEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         22 . 7 . 95
   ( b ) ruled that the Commission correctly decided in law                              that the Commission concluded that the former
          that the rules were incapable of allowing consumers                            infringement(s ) had been committed deliberately
          a fair share of the benefits resulting from them,                              or, at the very least, through serious negligence,
          basing that ruling on considerations which are                                 whereas it found that the latter infringement(s ) had
          inherently contradictory and incomprehensible and                              been committed intentionally or at least negligently;
          on the assumption, incompatible with Article 5 ( 3 )                           and/or
          of the EC Treaty, that ( i ) for the purposes of
          assessing the competition rules in the light of the                     (c ) held, contrary to the relevant facts and matters
          second condition laid down in Article 85 ( 3 ),                                established by it and the provisions of Article 4 ( 2 )
          macroeconomic benefits are of no relevance, and/or                             of Regulation No 17/62, that the applicants could
          (ii ) that the second condition in Article 85 ( 3 ) can be                     have had no doubt in the circumstances that their
          regarded as satisfied only where the benefits under                            rules fell within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
          consideration accrue without distinction to all                                Treaty, and that the relatively benevolent attitude of
          consumers ;                                                                    the Netherlands authorities regarding the rules
                                                                                         should have encouraged the applicants to notify the
                                                                                         rules to the Commission with a view to obtaining an
   (c ) ruled that the restrictions on competition resulting                             exemption .
          from the rules are not indispensable to the
          attainment of the objectives pursued by those rules,
          thereby substituting its own assessment of the rules             (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 8 .
          in the light of Article 8 5 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty for that
          of the Commission, contrary to Article 173 of
          the EC Treaty and Article 9 ( 1 ) of Regulation
          No 17/62 .
— Infringement and/or misapplication of Community law,                     Appeal brought on 2 May 1995 by Campo Ebro Industrial
   particularly Article 85 of the EC Treaty, Articles 4                    SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica
   and/or 15 of Regulation No 17/62 and/or Article 190 of                  SA, against the judgment delivered on 21 February 1995 by
   the EC Treaty, and in any event of the general principles               the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
   of Community law concerning the giving of reasons for                   European Communities in Case T-472/93 between Campo
    (judicial) decisions, legal certainty and legal protection             Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and
   and/or proportionality, in that, in rejecting the                       Cerestar Iberica SA, and the Council of the European
   applicants' plea as to the absence of any element of                    Union, supported by the Commission of the European
   intention or negligence in the infringements found by                                           Communities , intervener
   the Commission to have been committed by the                                                       ( Case C-138/95 P)
   undertakings concerned and as to the disproportionality
   of the fine imposed in that regard, the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 189/15 )
   Instance wrongly considered and decided the matters
   stated and set forth in paragraphs 346 to 388 inclusive of              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February
   its contested judgment, since, in thus considering and                  1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
   ruling on the determination by the Commission of the                    the European Communities in Case T-472/93 between
   gravity of the infringements established by it, within the              Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial
   meaning of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62, the                 SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, and the Council of the
   Court of First Instance :
                                                                           European Union, supported by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, intervener, was brought before the
    (a ) failed to verify the extent to which the Commission               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May
          decided      in   each  instance       that   a  deliberate      1995 by Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola
          infringement, alternatively a (culpably ) negligent              Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, represented by Paul
          contravention, had been committed, and thus                      Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service
          ignored the fact that, as is apparent from                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Me Carlos Zeyen, 67
                                                                           Rue Ermesinde .
          Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62, the
          difference between intentional and negligent acts is
          a decisive factor for the purposes of determining the            The appellants claim that the Court should:
          gravity of the breach and thus fixing the amount of
          the fine(s ) to be imposed on the undertaking(s )
          concerned; and/or                                                  ( i ) annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance, in so
                                                                                     far as the Court of First Instance rejected the claim for
                                                                                     damages; and
    ( b ) disregarded the fact that the Commission drew a
           distinction in that regard between one or more                   (ii ) order the Community to make good the damage
          infringements of the UPR rules and one or                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of Regulation
           more infringements committed over a period                                 ( EEC ) No 3814/92 of 28 December 1992 (*) and to
          going back at least to 1 October 1980, and                                 assess the damages at ECU 3 444 403 for Campo
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 7. 95              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/9
       Ebro, ECU 1 305 169 for Laisa and ECU 2 132 421              necessarily entail formation of stocks, that the applicants
       for Cerestar, or at such other amounts as this Court         were in a different situation than the sugar producers and
       considers appropriate, increased by an interest of 8 %       that the different treatment as regards the aid paid to the
       per year from the date of the application to the Court       sugar producers for sugar held in stock on 31 December
       of First Instance until the date of payment; or              1992 was justified .
(iii ) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                    The Court of First Instance ignored the judgment of this
       and                                                          Court in Royal Scholten-Honig as well as the common
                                                                    organization of the market in the sugar sector and infringed
                                                                    the principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the
( iv ) order the Council to pay the applicants' costs in this       EC Treaty in finding that the applicants are in a different
       proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of          situation than the sugar producers and could be treated
       First Instance .                                             differently because they are not obliged to pay a minimum
                                                                    price fixed by the Community for their raw materials .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed various
                                                                    provisions and principles of Community law in dismissing
                                                                    the applicants' plea alleging a breach of the principle of
The Court of First Instance infringed Article 70 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the non-discrimination .
Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, the principle of
legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty in
finding that the applicants could not derive any legitimate         f 1 ) OJ No L 387, 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 7 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 162 , 26 . 6 . 1991 , p . 18 .
expectations from the Act of Accession.
The Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted Regulation
( EEC ) No 1716/91 (2 ) and infringed the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the
EC Treaty in finding that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1716/91
could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation on the        Appeal brought on 8 May 1995 by the Commission of the
applicants ' part.                                                  European Communities against the judgment delivered on
                                                                    7 March 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
The Court of First Instance ignored Article 28 of the Single        T-432/93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 between Socurte —
European Act and infringed the principle of the protection          Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Lda., Quavi —
of legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty         Revestimentos de Cortiça, Lda. and Stec — Sociedade
in finding that prudent and well-informed traders ought to          Transformadora de Carnes, Lda. and the Commission of
have realized that achievement of the single market might
                                                                                      the European Communities
lead to an early alignment of the intervention price of
sugar .                                                                                      ( Case C-143/95 P)
                                                                                                 ( 95/C 189/16 )
The Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted Regulation
( EEC ) No 1716/91 and infringed the principle of legitimate        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1995
expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty in finding that       by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the applicants could not have had a legitimate expectation          European Communities in Joined Cases T-432/93 ,
worthy of protection in the conditions under which price            T-433/93 and T-434/93 between Socurte — Sociedade de
alignment was carried out with effect from the 1993/94              Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Lda ., Quavi — Revestimentos de
marketing year.                                                     Cortiça, Lda . and Stec — Sociedade Transformadora de
                                                                    Carnes, Lda . and the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
The Court of First Instance infringed various provisions and        European Communities on 8 May 1995 by the Commission
principles of Community law in dismissing the applicants '          of the European Communities, represented by Francisco de
plea alleging a breach of the principle of the protection of        Sousa Fialho and Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, with
legitimate expectations.                                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                    Georgios Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
In paragraph 81 of the judgment, the Court of First Instance        Kirchberg.
misconstrued the applicants' arguments and infringed the
principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the EC           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Treaty.
                                                                     1 , annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
The Court of First Instance erred in law and infringed the                Chamber ) of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/93 ,
principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the EC                 T-433/93 and T-434/93 ;
Treaty in inferring, from the fact that the production of
isoglucose, unlike the production of sugar, does not                2 , order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs.