CELEX: C1995/137/64
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Aker SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-70/95)

3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/27
The applicant argues that the Community principle of                         6 . Inadequate structure of the oral hearing.
freedom of movement is thereby infringed .
                                                                             7. Reliance on self-incriminating evidence .
She also argues that that provision of the Staff Regulations
infringes the principle of equal treatment.                                  8.  Reformulation of the Commission 's case and
In the applicant's opinion, it is for the Community                              termination of proceedings against certain German
institutions to close the gap in the relevant provisions of the                  and Spanish companies .
Staff Regulations in the fulfilment of their duty of care
towards the citizen .                                                   II . Manifest errors of reasoning and interference
                                                                             The applicant expounds that the decision is based on
                                                                             the consideration that there exists a ' single and
                                                                             continuous agreement' in the west European cement
                                                                             industry. This theory, that the applicant contests, has
Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Aker SA against the                    led the Commission into errors of appreciation and
          Commission of the European Communities                             interpretation in relation to the applicant,
                          ( Case T-70/95 )                                   concerning:
                            ( 95/C 137/64 )
                                                                             1 . its supposed participation in the Cembureau
                 (Language of the case: English)                                 Agreement; and
                                                                             2 . its supposed participation in the European Task
An action against the Commission of the European                                 Force .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
1995 by Aker SA represented by Mr Nicholas Forwood and                       The applicant submits that there is no basis for any
Mr John Cook with an address for service in Luxembourg at                    finding that it was guilty of behaviour capable of
the chambers of Arendt & Medernach, Boite Postale 39,                        constituting an intentional breach of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
L-2010 Luxembourg.                                                           the EC Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           III . Lack of jurisdiction and discrimination
— annul wholly or alternatively in part the decision of the                  1 . The applicant maintains that, given that it is an
     Commission of 30 November 1994 in so far as it relates
                                                                                 undertaking established outside the European
     to the applicant,                                                           Community, the Commission was obliged to state
                                                                                 clearly in the statement of objections and in the
— cancel or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed by                           decision the basis on which it asserted jurisdiction
     Article 9 , and
                                                                                 over it. The Commission's failure to explain its
                                                                                 position on this matter constitutes a breach of the
— award the costs of the application to the applicant.                           right to be heard and of Article 190 of the EC
                                                                                 Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             2 . The applicant further submits that the Commission
The grounds, on the basis of which the legality of the                           did not respect its obligation to exercise its
contested decision is challenged, can be summarized as                           jurisdiction in a uniform and non-discriminatory
follows .                                                                        manner as between all the non-EC undertakings
                                                                                 involved in the procedures .
  I. Infringements of essential procedural requirements
                                                                       IV .  Fines
       1.  Failure   to      disclose  the  full  statement     of
           objections .
                                                                             1 . The applicant emphasizes that the Commission has
       2 . Failure to translate supporting documents into the                    not established that its conduct can be regarded as
           language of the case .                                                intentional or negligent, within the meaning of
                                                                                 Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation 17/62 .
       3 . Inaccurate quotation from documents .
                                                                             2 . The applicant submits that the Commission has
       4 . Failure to give the applicant access to the entirety of               failed to explain the individual basis of the fine
           the Commission 's file and to other relevant files .                  against it.
       5 . Failure to disclose the responses of other addressees
           of the statement of objections .