CELEX: C1998/209/76
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-348/94: Enso Española SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Right to an independant and impartial tribunal - Right of the defence - Statement of reasons - Fine - Determination of the amount - Method of calculation - Mitigating circumstances - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

C 209/36              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine,
                                                                                            of 14 May 1998
Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July              in Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA v. Commission of the
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                              European Communities (1)
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Right
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of             to an independant and impartial tribunal Ð Right of the
the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.          defence Ð Statement of reasons Ð Fine Ð Determination
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the        of the amount Ð Method of calculation Ð Mitigating
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in                 circumstances Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Principle
which it:                                                                                  of proportionality)
                                                                                             (98/C 209/76)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
    Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:           In Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA, established at
                                                                   Castellbisbal, Barcelona, Spain, represented initially by
                                                                   Antonio Creus Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           Brussels Bar, and Bonifacio García Porras, of the
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        Salamanca Bar, then by Messrs. Creus Carreras, Ruiz Cal-
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              zado and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar v.
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any              Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the             initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz and Richard
    same or a similar object or effect, including any              Lyal, then Richard Lyal and Ricardo Garcia Vicente) Ð
    exchange of commercial information:                            application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                   601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
    (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                   OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber,
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
                                                                   Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
                                                                   President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
          producers.
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   14 May 1998 in which it:
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its       1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any                  Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
    information from which the behaviour of individual                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
    producers can be identified.'.                                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the
                                                                        date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
                                                                        against it is stated to be prior to February 1989.
2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the
    applicant by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
    17 000 000.                                                    2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
                                                                        Article 1 of Decision 94/601/EC.
3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
    claims.                                                        3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
                                                                        by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 1 200 000.
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-
    quarter of the applicant's costs.                              4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                        claims.
5. Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of its own
    costs.                                                         5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ 386, 31.12.1994.                                            (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.