CELEX: C1995/119/35
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 February 1995 by Société Lafarge Coppée against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-43/95)

No C 119/14            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                                13 . 5 . 95
     2. Incorrect analysis of the applicant's market                               with the fact that the Commission chose to
          conduct: in forming the view that the applicant was                      incriminate only a selection of European cement
          involved in an agreement to limit transhipments of                       producers. The applicant also takes the view that
          cement between France and Germany, the                                   the Commission could not, without contradicting
          Commission was guilty of a manifest error in                             itself, define the geographical reference market as
          interpretation of the facts.                                              being both local and European at the same time.
                                                                         II. Manifest error of assessment: the applicant submits
                                                                              that the complaints upheld against it — regarded by the
                                                                              Commission as the application of a general agreement
                                                                              — are either non-existent or without relation to the
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Société Ciments
                                                                              applicant and, in any event, unconnected to a general
Français SA against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                       agreement. The applicant also takes the view that the
                                                                              evidence which ostensibly establishes the existence of a
                         (Case T-39/95 )                                      general agreement to 'respect home markets' is
                           ( 95/C 119/34 )                                    manifestly inadequate.
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         III. Breach of the principles of non-discrimination and
                                                                              proportionality, along with breach of the principles of
An action against the Commission of the European                              sound administration and the protection of legitimate
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             expectations.
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February
1995 by Société Ciments Français SA, having its registered              IV. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the fines
office in Paris ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler, of               imposed on it should be reduced substantially. It takes
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   the view that the Commission :
the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich.
                                                                              1 , committed manifest errors in its calculation;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                              2 , failed properly to take account of the gravity of the
— annul the Commission decision of 30 November                                     alleged infringements and on that ground
     1994,                                                                         committed a serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                   proportionality;
— in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed,
                                                                              3 , chose an incorrect relevant market as the basis for
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                          calculating the fine .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following
pleas in law:
                                                                        Action brought on 18 February 1995 by Société Lafarge
  I.  Procédural defects :                                                   Coppée against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                       Communities
      1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing. The applicant
                                                                                                     (Case T-43/95 )
           submits that there has been a failure to comply with
           the principle that all parties should be heard in                                          ( 95/C 119/35 )
           administrative proceedings: first, on the ground of
           non-communication          or   absence     of  details                        (Language of tbe case: French)
           connecting individuals to certain fundamental
           complaints; second, on the ground that there was
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
           no full access to the file documents; and, finally, by
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
           reason of the restrictions imposed on the
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 18 February
           applicant's opportunity to set out its view
                                                                        1 995 by Société Lafarge Coppée, having its registered office
           regarding the complaints finally upheld against
           it.
                                                                        in Paris ( France ), represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the
                                                                        Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      2 . The Advisory Committee was not called to                      Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
           comment on the exact amount of the fines
           envisaged by the Commission.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      3 . Failure to state reasons. The applicant points out in        — annul the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
           this regard that the theory of a 'single and                     in its entirety, or at least Articles 1 , 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) and 3 ( 3 ) ( a ),
           continuous agreement' involving practically the                  4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), 4 ( 3 ) ( a ), 4 (4 ) (e ) and 4 (4 ) ( f), 6 and 7
           entire European cement industry is directly at odds              thereof,
 ---pagebreak---  13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 119/15
— in the alternative, set aside or at least reduce the fines           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      imposed pursuant to Articles 9.22 and 10.3 of the
      Decision,                                                        — annual the Decision of the Commission 94/815/EC
                                                                            (IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) of 30 November 1994 relating
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                  to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty 0 ), at
                                                                           least in so far as concerns the applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on
The applicant seeks annulment of the Decision on the                       it,
following grounds:
                                                                       — in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs of the
1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing by reason of                     proceedings and to reimburse to the applicant the costs
      procedural irregularities committed both at the time of              and interest incurred in respect of the security lodged,
      adoption of the international complaints and severance               either in their entirety or in so far as they relate to the
      of the national complaints .                                         fine, if reduced .
2 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty resulting from               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manifest errors of assessment relating both to the global
      context of the alleged agreement and the definition of           The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
      the market at issue .                                            its application:
3 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty in so far as the               I. Breach of essential procedural requirements :
      Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in
      respect of the infringements found against the applicant                ( a ) In the stages prior to the adoption of the
      relating to :                                                                 Decision :
      — involvement in the 'Cembureau principle',                                   — failure to notify to the applicant the documents
                                                                                        on which the Commission based its Statement
      — involvement in the ' Greek problem',                                            of Objections,
      — involvement on the Export Committees,                                       — failure to identify to whom the Statement of
                                                                                        Objections is addressed,
      — involvement in bilateral application measures,
                                                                                    — breach of the principle of immediacy;
      — involvement on the White Cement Committee .
                                                                              ( b ) In the adoption of the Decision:
In the alternative, the applicant seeks:
                                                                                    — formulation of new objections and
1 , annulment of the fines for breach of Article 190 of the
                                                                                        amendment of previous ones; inconsistency
      EC Treaty, Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 and                            with a previous decision,
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74;
                                                                                    — infringement of the applicant's right of
2 , reduction of the amount of the fines on the ground of                               defence; the new objections raised which
      infringement of the principles of proportionality,                                were not contained in the Statement of
      protection of legitimate expectations and non­                                    Objections,
      discrimination .
                                                                                    — erroneous authentication of the Decision,
                                                                                    — use of statements submitted by the parties in
                                                                                        their defence to support arguments against
                                                                                        them and against other parties which had not
Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Unicem SpA                                        been given the opportunity to reply to them,
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-50/95                                            — Decision addressed to the wrong persons:
                            ( 95/C 119/36 )                                             breach of the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                                        of the applicant's rights of defence,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                    — failure to specify the duration of the
                                                                                        infringements alleged in the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       II. Insufficient statement of reasons, breach of rules of law
Instance of the European Communities on 21 February                           and erroneous assessment of the evidence as regards:
1995 by Unicem SpA, whose registered office is in Turin
( Italy), represented by Grande Stevens, of the Turin Bar,                    ( a ) the definition of the relevant market;
Magrone Osti of the Rome Bar, and Gandini, of the Turin
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         ( b) the alleged 'Cembureau Agreement' limiting
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                             national markets;