CELEX: C2002/169/66
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-130/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 169/37
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA                         The Commission has also breached Article 15(2) of Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      17/62 in that it has wrongly classed the alleged infringement
                                                                          as ‘very serious’. Firstly, in defining the alleged cartel as ‘price
                                                                          fixing market sharing practices’, the Commission seeks to
                         (Case T-129/02)                                  confer a disproportionate importance on the alleged market
                                                                          allocation practices, misrepresenting their gravity. Secondly,
                                                                          in classing the alleged infringement as ‘very serious’, the
                        (2002/C 169/65)                                   Commission does not take account of the difference between
                                                                          agreements fixing prices, which lead to uniform prices, and
                                                                          other price agreements, which do not lead to uniform prices.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Moreover, the Commission has failed properly to examine the
                                                                          relative gravity of the infringement allegedly committed by the
                                                                          applicant. In short, the defendant has failed to take into
                                                                          consideration the fact that the applicant, as it claims, did not
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 apply the price increases allegedly fixed and thus defeated the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                anti-competitive effects of the alleged cartel; in addition the
                                                                          Commission wrongly assessed the effective capacity of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA,
represented by Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Francisco Cantos                 applicant to cause damage to competition.
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels (Belgium).
                                                                          (1) Not yet published in the OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 1 of the contested Decision in so far as it
      establishes an infringement of Article 81, paragraph 1, of
      the Treaty by the applicant in the period from 1 January
      1992 to September 1993; and reduce the fine accord-
      ingly;                                                              Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH
                                                                          & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
—     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
      the applicant in Article 3 of the contested Decision;
                                                                                                    (Case T-130/02)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2002/C 169/66)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
case T-109/02 Bolloré/Commission (1). By this Decision, the               European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly
Defendant found that the applicant and ten other manufac-                 GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengrabe (Germany), represented by
turers of carbonless paper had infringed Article 81(1) of the             R. Nierer, lawyer.
EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by
participating in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices by which they fixed price increases, allocated sales            The applicant claims that the Court should:
quotas and fixed market shares and set up machinery to
monitor the implementation of the restrictive agreements.                 —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2002 not
                                                                                to correct the decision of 3 July 2001 on planned aid
                                                                                No N 813/2000;
In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that the
Commission has wrongly applied Article 81(1) of the Treaty                —     order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
and violated the principle of presumption of innocence, as                      those of the applicant.
well as an essential procedural requirement, as it has not
sufficiently proven that the applicant committed an infringe-
ment of the above-mentioned provision from January 1992
until September 1993. It is stressed in this regard that such an          Pleas in law and main arguments
approach does not mean that the applicant would recognise
that there was an infringement concerning the period there-
after. It has however chosen not to lodge an appeal against the           In the contested decision, the Commission established a
entire decision of the Commission.                                        competitive factor of 0,75 in respect of the notified aid. In the
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/38                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.7.2002
applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.               European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of                 and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the              Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-                  & Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its            —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe                    Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted               caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements                £ 25,5 million;
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.                            —     order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-
                                                                                 cation.
The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use                   Pleas in law and main arguments
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary                   The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the                of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/                    Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.                                                    (1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
the multisectoral framework on regional aid and that it
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed            Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without              plc against the Commission of the European Communities
withdrawing it.
                                                                                                   (Case T-135/02)
Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same                                         (2002/C 169/68)
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested                                  (Language of the case: English)
decision.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
                                                                           Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
                                                                           Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).
Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               munities
                                                                           —     annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of
                          (Case T-131/02)                                        11 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 169/67)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed