CELEX: C1998/299/25
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso Española, SA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-348/94 between Enso Española, SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-282/98 P)

26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/15
    Article 172 of the EC Treaty: unlike in the case of the                considerably on the ground that such statement of
    other parties involved, the Court did not hold that its                reasons was inadequate;
    finding that the appellant had participated in the cartel
    for a shorter period should be reflected by an
    appropriate reduction in the fine.                                 2. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
                                                                           the extent to which the Court of First Instance
                                                                           does not consider that, by not taking account of
    When assessing the gravity of the infringement the                     the effects of the devaluation of the peseta against
    Court of First Instance wrongly took the view that the                 the ecu, the Commission infringed the principle of
    absence of economic effects of the infringement was                    equal treatment or, in the alternative, reduce the
    not a mitigating factor in regard to the fine.                         fine so as to take account of that devaluation;
                                                                       3. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
    Lastly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in
                                                                           the extent to which it does not order the
    finding that the appellant's cooperation should not be
                                                                           Commission to pay, at first instance, the totality of
    taken into account so as to reduce the fine.
                                                                           the costs and interest deriving from the security for
                                                                           or possible payment of all or part of the fine, and
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 32.                                             decide that the interest accruing on the fine
(2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.                                             accrues only from the time at which the judgment
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance becomes enforceable,
                                                                           and consequently order the Commission to pay the
                                                                           costs and interest connected with security for or
                                                                           possible payment of the fine;
Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA               2. order the respondent in the proceedings before the
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay
Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                   the costs, and give a decision to the effect that the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                     costs be paid by the defendant at first instance in the
       T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                     event of the present appeal being held to be wholly or
         Commission of the European Communities                        partly well founded.
                      (Case C-282/98 P)
                        (98/C 299/25)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                 Ð Infringement of Community law:
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                    Ð misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 190
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         of the Treaty establishing the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    Community as regards the lack of a statement of
on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA, represented by                      the reasons on which the Decision was based in
Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras                     relation to the fine,
Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at
the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, Avenue                           Ð misinterpretation and misapplication of the
d'Auderghem 78, Brussels.                                                  principle of equal treatment through failure by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance correctly to evaluate the
                                                                           devaluations of the Spanish peseta which gave rise
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                           to an increase in the fine to be paid by ENSO
                                                                           EspanÄola, SA as compared with the fines to be
                                                                           paid by other undertakings whose currencies have
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
                                                                           not lost value or have indeed increased in value,
    Case T-348/94 (1) to the extent set out below and draw
    all the legal consequences of the setting aside of that
    judgment, whether it gives a decision on the substance             Ð incoherent reasoning on the part of the Court of
    itself or refers the case back to the Court of First                   First Instance regarding its failure to order the
    Instance for judgment, and in particular:                              Commission to pay the costs and interest deriving
                                                                           from the provision of security for or payment of
    1. annul the contested judgment to the extent to                       the fine.
         which it treats the Decision as not infringing
         Article 190 of the EC Treaty as far as the fine is        (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 36.
         concerned and, in consequence, annul the fine on
         the ground of lack of a statement of the reasons
         for the Decision or, in the alternative, reduce it