CELEX: C1999/299/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-194/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Thyssen Stahl AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities

C 299/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
     that the ‘normal competition’ protected by Article 65(1) of        2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
     the ECSC Treaty cannot be the same competition as that                 C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-
     protected by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. It was for that           ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning
     reason wrong in law simply to classify every exchange of               agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     information as a restriction of competition prohibited                 pean producers of beams, in so far as those articles have
     under Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.                                not already been annulled by the judgment of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94;
— Infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in regard to
     the assessment of the information exchange: the assess-            3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     ment of the information exchange as a separate constituent             at first instance and those of the present appeal.
     feature of conduct in restraint of competition for the
     purposes of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty constituted a
     misconstruction of that article. Under Article 65 of the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     ECSC Treaty, the exchange of information must have
     tended to restrict competition. The Court erred in law in
     holding that it was sufficient if the information might            — Infringement of procedural rights, in particular the prin-
     influence the conduct of undertakings. The possibility that            ciple of ex proprio motu investigation, the rights of defence
     conduct might be influenced cannot per se, however, be                 and the right to procedural fairness: the Court of First
     equated with the tendency to restrict competition.                     Instance misconstrued the scope of the appellant’s pro-
                                                                            cedural rights, its rights of defence and right to procedural
                                                                            fairness, as well as the obligation arising under the principle
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                            of ex proprio motu investigation to establish facts also
                                                                            favourable to the undertakings. Further, the Court erred in
                                                                            law in concluding that the procedural defects in the
                                                                            administrative procedure had been rectified during the
                                                                            judicial proceedings.
                                                                        — Errors in law in regard to the Commission’s failure to
                                                                            comply with essential procedural requirements when it
                                                                            adopted the decision: in view of the fundamental import-
                                                                            ance that the principle of collegiate responsibility should
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Thyssen Stahl AG                           be complied with, the interpretation of inherently contra-
against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the                      dictory minutes to mean that it could be assumed that the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                         requisite number of Commission Members had been
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                              present constituted an error in law. In so doing, the Court
T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of the Euro-                         wrongly rejected the complaint made in that connection
                        pean Communities                                    and infringed Articles 5 and 6 of the Commission’s 1993
                                                                            Rules of Procedure. The rejection of the complaint alleging
                                                                            that the version of the decision sent to the appellant was
                       (Case C-194/99 P) (*)                                not authenticated under Article 16 of the Commission’s
                                                                            Rules of Procedure also amounts to an error in law. In this,
                         (1999/C 299/04)                                    the Court of First Instance misconstrued the purpose served
                                                                            by the presumption of validity enjoyed by Community
                                                                            measures; that presumption cannot prevent a decision
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the               from being set aside in the case where that decision had
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Thyssen Stahl                        been adopted in breach of formal requirements.
AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Deringer,
Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050 Brussels,              — Infringement of Article 65(1) and Article 33 of the ECSC
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Treaty. In the first place, the Court of First Instance, in a
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment delivered on                 clear departure from the Commission decision, assumed
11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European                that the exchange of information constituted a separate
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in                       infringement of competition (infringement of Article 33
Case T-141/94 Thysser Stahl AG v Commission of the                          of the ECSC Treaty). Second, the Court infringed Article
European Communities.                                                       65(1) of the ECSC Treaty in so far as it treated the
                                                                            monitoring of orders and deliveries as constituting a
                                                                            separate infringement, without being able to adduce proper
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 legal reasons as to why the mere exchange of information
                                                                            should be anti-competitive. Finally, the Court failed to
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the                 appreciate that the exchange of information in question
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    was necessary within the context of the monitoring system
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                         implemented by the Commission from 1 July 1988 to 20
     T-141/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed             June 1990 pursuant to Decision No 2448/88 and the
     on the appellant at EUR 4 400 000 [paragraph (2)] of the               forward programmes to be set up for that purpose and
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph           was therefore part of the scheme objectively promoted by
     (3) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear           DG III, which the Court ought not to have overlooked
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                when it formed the view that the conduct in question was
     (paragraph (4) of the operative part);                                 anti-competitive.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.10.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/5
     In its examination of the pricing agreements in the light of        Pleas in law and main arguments
     Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, the Court also failed
     entirely to take account of the special features of ‘normal
     competition’ within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
     ECSC Treaty. In this it accepted that DG III could modify           Case C-194/99 P, with the exception of those set out in the
     ‘normal competition’ and, in particular, that it had con-           first indent in the notice relating to that case.
     ceded to undertakings, within the context of cooperation
     with DG III, scope for discussions on price forecasts. Had
                                                                         (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     it acted correctly, the Court ought to have examined
     whether the practices in question came within that scope,
     since, if that were so, there would be no anti-competitive
     conduct within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC
     Treaty.
— Error in law in the quantification of the fine.
— Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
     Human Rights by reason of the unduly lengthy duration               Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain
     of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.              Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March
                                                                         1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                         in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case C-196/99 P) (*)
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch Stahl                                                 (1999/C 299/06)
AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the                       European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica
                     European Communities                                Aristrain Madrid S.L., represented by Antonio Creus, of the
                                                                         Barcelona Bar, and Natalia Lacalle Mangas, of the Madrid Bar,
                        (Case C-195/99 P) (*)                            with an address for service at the Cuatrecasas Law Chambers,
                                                                         78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels, against the judg-
                          (1999/C 299/05)                                ment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the            Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch                      Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities.
Stahl AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Dering-
er, Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment
delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance                I.   Annul the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                         Court of First Instance in Case T-156/94 (1) on the ground
Composition) in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v                         of all or some of the defects indicated, and draw from
Commission of the European Communities.                                       the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences,
                                                                              whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   refers the case back to the Court of First Instance, and, in
                                                                              particular:
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      1. Annul the contested judgment in so far as it finds that
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                               the decision does not infringe Community law by
     T-147/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed                   reason of misapplication and misinterpretation of
     on the appellant at EUR 9 000 (paragraph (1) of the                          Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and, accordingly, annul
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph                 the decision on that ground;
     (2) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                  2. Rule on the substance, in so far as it is ready for
     (paragraph (3) of the operative part);                                       judgment, or, if not, refer the case back to the Court of
                                                                                  First Instance in order that it may rule on the grounds
2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision                               set out below, and accordingly annul the decision in
     C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-                    so far as it relates to these grounds or, in the alternative,
     ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning                     reduce the fine imposed on the appellant:
     agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     pean producers of beams;
                                                                                  — joint responsibility,
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     at first instance and those of the present appeal.                           — failure to state reasons,