CELEX: C1995/101/38
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-46/95)

22. 4. 95            [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 101 / 19
      provide translations of documentary evidence written           Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement
      in foreign languages, thereby frustrating the submission       Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European
      by the applicant of a comprehensive response (third                                      Communities
      head of claim);                                                                        (Case T-46/95 )
( d ) rendered it impossible, in overall terms, for the                                       ( 95/C 101/38 )
      applicant to submit a defence commensurate with the
      scope of the matters covered by the proceeding, by                            (Language of the case: German)
      prescribing unreasonably short periods for the delivery
      of its response and for inspection of the file ( fourth head
      of claim );                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
( e ) provided a statement of reasons for he decision which          Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      was inadequate and contradictory, particularly as              1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft of Hanover,
      regards discrepancies between the operative part of the        represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin
      decision and the reasons therefor, as well as an absence       Klusmann, Rechtsanwâlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for
      of reasons in support of individual objections ( fifth         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
      head of claim), and — consequently —                           62 Avenue Guillaume .
( f) made findings of fault and determined the fine to be
      imposed in a manner which, from a formal standpoint            The applicant claims that the Court should :
      alone, fell far short of the requirements laid down by
      Article 190 of the EC Treaty regarding the giving              1 . annul in its entirety the Decision of the Commission of
      of reasons for individual decisions ( sixth head of                 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
      claim).                                                             Cement ), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
                                                                          and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
By reason of those procedural infringements, the                          applicant,
Commission breached the principles of equality of arms in
the proceeding, of entitlement to a fair hearing and of                   in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
equitable procedure and equality of treatment.                            applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
Consequently, the decision was reached in an unlawful                     significance of the influence on competition forming the
manner and should thus be annulled .                                      subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
                                                                          which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
As regards the substance of the matter, the applicant                     involvement of the applicant in the matter;
complains that the Commission:
(a ) based its legal subsumptions on incorrect and unproven          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
      suppositions, in that it investigated the actual
      circumstances in the cement markets in a fragmentary           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manner and drew erroneous and arbitrary conclusions
      from the facts investigated ( seventh head of claim );         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                     in Case T-45/95 Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke
( b ) with particular regard to the ECEC, failed to recognize,       GmbH v . Commission .
      from the standpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
      the absence of elements constituting an infringement in
      relation to that organization and its modus operandi
      ( eighth head of claim);
(c) assumed the existence of links between the ECEC and
      the EPC, organizations which were the subject of               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Terres Rouges
      complaints, whereas no such links in fact existed ( ninth      Consultant and others against the Commission of the
      head of claim);                                                                   European Communities
( d ) in assuming the existence of a single continuing                                       (Case T-47/95 )
      infringement, bracketed together, in a grossly unlawful                                 ( 95/C 101/39 )
      manner, different sets of facts, and conjectured
      participation in the alleged Cembureau agreement
      (tenth head of claim );
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
(e ) without due authority, issued directions in Article 8           An action against the Commission of the European
      of the decision which were inadequately defined and            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      which were impermissible regarding the future                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      exchange of information (eleventh head of claim).              1 995 by Terres Rouges Consultant, the head office of which
Consequently, the decision constitutes an infringement of            is in Paris, Cobana Import, the head office of which is at
                                                                     Rungis ( France), and SIPEV NV, the head office of which is
the Treaty and of higher-ranking rules of Community law,
and should for that reason be annulled .                             in Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel Aurillac, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine.