CELEX: C2003/019/65
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2002 in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)

C 19/34                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
       —     default interest in respect of the benefits accruing to the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             applicant under the allowances in issue, for each month
             from October 2000 until the date on which the decision
             of 16 July 2001 takes effect, until full payment of the
             amounts due.                                                                           of 25 October 2002
3.     orders the rate of default interest to be calculated on the basis
       of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main               in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
       refinancing operations, applicable in the period in question,                             European Communities ( 1)
       plus two points.
4.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                             ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                     Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring
                                                                             a concentration incompatible with the common market —
                                                                                        Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                                                                                                       (2003/C 19/65)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 October 2002
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-5/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common                       In Case T-80/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam
market — Rights of the defence — Horizontal and vertical                     (Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-
effects — Foreseeable conglomerate effects — Leveraging —                    broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission
   Potential competition — General effect of reinforcement)                  of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
                                                                             P. Hellström): Application for annulment of the Commission
                            (2003/C 19/64)                                   Decision of 30 January 2002 setting out measures in order to
                                                                             restore conditions of effective competition pursuant to Article
                     (Language of the case: English)                         8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
                                                                             1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
                                                                             (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel), the Court of
                                                                             First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
In Case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam                     President, J. Pirrung and N. J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission                  25 October 2002, in which it:
of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
P. Hellström): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001 declaring a
concentration to be incompatible with the common market                      (1) Annuls the Commission Decision of 30 January 2002
and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra                                  setting out measures in order to restore conditions of effective
Laval/Sidel), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                          competition pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and N.J. For-                     (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
wood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     concentrations between undertakings (Case No COMP/
has given a judgment on 25 October 2002, in which it:                               M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of
                                                                             (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
       30 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible
       with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case                           of the applicant, including those relating to the interim
       No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);                                         proceedings.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs of the applicant.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.