CELEX: C2003/112/74
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-86/03: Action brought on 6 March 2003 by Holcim against the Commission of the European Communities

10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 112/39
Action brought on 6 March 2003 by Holcim against the                       Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Intech EDM AG
          Commission of the European Communities                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-86/03)
                                                                                                     (Case T-87/03)
                          (2003/C 112/74)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 112/75)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2003 by Holcim, a
company established in Paris, represented by Marie-Pia Hutin-
Houillon, lawyer.                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Intech EDM AG,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Losone (Switzerland), represented by M. Karl, Rechtsanwalt.
—     order the Commission to pay EUR 1 488 287,50, corre-
      sponding to the amount of interest to be repaid to
      Holcim, successor to the company Cedest;                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order it to pay, in addition, default interest for the period        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 17 December 2002
      running from 27 July 2000 until judgment is delivered in                   (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 -Special Graphite);
      the present action;
—     declare that both those amounts are to bear interest from            —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3(h)
      the date judgment is delivered until full payment is made.                 of the decision;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The defendant’s decision 94/815/EC imposed on Cedest SA a
fine of ECU 2 522 000 for infringing former Article 85(1) of               Pleas in law and main arguments
the EC Treaty. Following an action for annulment brought by
Cedest (Case T-38/95), the Court, by a judgment of 15 March
2000, annulled the contested decision so far as concerned
Cedest. As a result of that judgment, the defendant repaid to              The applicant distributes isostatically pressed special graphite,
Cedest the principal amount of the fine, but it rejected Cedest’s          but does not itself produce it. Its activity in the European
request concerning payment of interest on that amount in                   special graphite market is based on a cooperation agreement
respect of the period running from 7 May 1995 (payment of                  between itself and Ibiden Co. Ltd., a Japanese producer
the fine by Cedest) to 27 July 2000 (repayment of the fine by              of isostatic special graphite. The Commission accused the
the defendant).                                                            applicant, Intech EMD BV (the former parent company of the
                                                                           applicant), and various producers of isostatic special graphite
                                                                           (including Ibiden) of taking part in a continuing agreement
The applicant has brought the present application asserting                and/or concerted practice on the market for special graphite
that it is the successor to Cedest following a merger. In support          in the European Community and the European Economic
of its application, the applicant claims that the payment of               Area. According to the Commission’s finding, the applicant
default interest on the principal sum of the fine was a measure            participated from February 1994 to May 1997 at European
to implement the judgment annulling the decision which the                 and regional level.
defendant was required to adopt, even in the absence of any
fault on its part. According to the applicant, the defendant’s
failure in this respect enables it, by virtue of the second
paragraph of Article 233 of the EC Treaty, to bring an action              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
for compensation in terms of the second paragraph of                       T-74/03 (Intech EMD BV v Commission).
Article 288 of the EC Treaty.