CELEX: C2000/316/54
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-213/00: Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the Commission of the European Communities

C 316/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
The grounds and arguments alleged by the applicant against               —     The Commission’s findings that the Regulations 17 and
the refusal by the Council to grant (partial) access to the                    1017/68 apply to various of the charges and surcharges
requested documents are similar to those invoked in case                       to which the decision relates is vitiated by breach of
T-188/98 (1).                                                                  essential procedural requirements and substantive errors
                                                                               of law. Concretely, the defects in the Commission’s
                                                                               market definition and reasoning vitiate the decision and
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.99, p. 28.                                                   render it unlawful.
                                                                         —     The decision is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory
                                                                               reasoning in its application of Article 2 and 5 of Regu-
                                                                               lation 1017/68 and of Articles 81(1) and (3) EC to the
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount the charges and
                                                                               discharges which it finds to fall within the scope of,
                                                                               respectively, Regulation 1017/68 and Regulation 17.
Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and
thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the                      —     There should be no basis for the application of Regu-
         Commission of the European Communities                                lation 17 and Regulation 1017/68 in relation to any
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount levels of Terminal
                                                                               Handling Charge (TCH). Any agreement by the Applicants
                         (Case T-213/00)
                                                                               relating to TCHs and to be subject to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 4056/86 (2).
                         (2000/C 316/54)
                                                                         —     The fines imposed by the Commission are excessive and
                                                                               inappropriate in view of the gravity and duration of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                             alleged infringment, the cooperation of the FETTCSA
                                                                               parties with the Commission and other mitigation factor
                                                                               and the duration of the Commission’s procedure.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM                        —     The Commission’s methodology for setting the levels of
and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies, represented by                    the fines should be considered as irrational and incoher-
John Pheasant, Catherine Barlen and Matthew Levitt of Lovells                  ent, resulting in discrimination between the FETTCSA
Boesebeck Droste, Brussels and Denis Waelbroeck and Ute                        parties.
Zinsmeister of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                         (1) Applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  inland waterway (OJEC No L 175, of 23.7.68, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and
—     annul the decision in its entirety, or, alternatively, at least        86 of the Treaty to maritime transports (OJEC L 378, of 31.12.86,
      in so far as it was adopted under Regulations 17 and                   p. 4).
      1017/68;
—     in any event, that the fines imposed by Article 4 of the
      decision be annulled or reduced; and
—     that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’ against the
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
The applicants in the present case are fourteen of the liner
shipping operators which were party to the FETTCSA, an                                            (Case T-214/00)
agreement between shipping lines operating on the North
Europe/Far East trade. The FETTCSA was entered into on                                            (2000/C 316/55)
5 March 1991 and was terminated on 10 May 1994. The
contested decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81
EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1917/68 (1), by agree-
ing not to discount from published tariffs for charges and                                   (Language of the case: French)
surcharges, and requires the applicants to refrain from agree-
ments on concerted practices having the same or similar effect.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The decision imposes fines.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’, represented
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:             by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar.