On 13 July 1994 the Commission adopted Decision 94/601/EC in which it found that 19 producers supplying cartonboard in the European Community had infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty and imposed fines on them on that basis. The total fines amounted to ECU 131 750 000, of which ECU 22 750 000 was imposed on the Swedish company Mo Och Domsjö AB.

According to Article 1 of the Decision, Buchmann GmbH, Cascades SA, Enso-Gutzeit Oy, Europa Carton AG, Finnboard Ä the Finnish Board Mills Association, Fiskeby Board AB, Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co KG, Kartonfabriek "de Eendracht NV" (now BPB de Eendracht NV), NV Koninklijke KNP BT NV, Laakmann Karton GmbH & Co KG, Mo Och Domsjö AB (MoDo), Mayr-Melnhof Gesellschaft mbH, Papeteries de Lancey SA, Rena Kartonfabrik AS, Sarrió SpA, SCA Holding Ltd (formerly Reed Paper & Board (UK) Ltd), Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Enso Española SA and Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co KG infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty by participating, during a period which varied depending on the undertaking concerned but which ended no later than April 1991, in an agreement and concerted practice originating in mid-1986 whereby the suppliers of cartonboard in the European Community, inter alia, planned and implemented simultaneous and uniform price increases throughout the Community, reached an understanding on maintaining the market shares of the major producers at constant levels, subject to modification from time to time, and increasingly from early 1990 took concerted measures to control the supply of the product in the Community in order to ensure the implementation of those concerted price rises.

According to the Decision, the infringement took place within a body known as the "Product Group Paperboard", which comprised several groups or comittees, including the "Presidents Working Group" ("PWG"), which brought together senior representatives of the main suppliers of cartonboard in the Community, and the "Joint Marketing Committee", which was set up at the end of 1987.

Procedure before the Court of First Instance

All the companies to which the Decision was addressed, except for Papeteries de Lancey and Rena, brought actions to annul the Decision. Laakmann Karton GmbH withdrew its action (Case T-301/94).

Four Finnish undertakings, members of the trade association Finnboard, and as such held jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on Finnboard, also brought actions against the Decision.

The Court is giving judgment in these cases today, ten months after the hearing which was held over a period of nine days at the beginning of July 1997. Of the Court's findings, the following in particular are worthy of note:

• proof of the undertakings' anti-competitive actions

  In only one case (Enso-Gutzeit v Commission) has the Court found that there was no proof of the undertaking's participation in the cartel. The Decision has therefore been wholly annulled as regards that undertaking.

  In cases involving applicants which had taken part in meetings of the PWG (Cascades, Finnboard, KNP, Mayr-Melnhof, MoDo, Sarrió, Stora and Weig), the Court has found that the Commission has proved that they participated in the constituent elements of the infringement, namely collusion on pricing, downtime and market shares.

  In other cases, where the applicants have submitted a plea to that effect, the Court has held that the Commission has not adequately proved that they took part in the collusion on market shares. It has therefore annulled Article 1 of the Decision to the extent that those applicants were held liable for participating in that aspect of the collusion. The Court has stated that in order to be entitled to hold each addressee of a decision, such as the present decision, responsible for an overall cartel during a given period, the Commission must demonstrate that each undertaking concerned either consented to the adoption of an overall plan comprising the constituent elements of the cartel or that it participated directly in all those elements during that period. An undertaking may also be held responsible for an overall cartel, even though it shown that it participated directly only in one or some of the constituent elements of that cartel, if it is shown that it knew, or must have known, that the collusion in which it participated was part of an overall plan and that this overall plan included all the constituent elements of the cartel.

• the fines

  In its judgments the Court of First Instance has held, inter alia, that the general level of the fines adopted by the Commission was justified. The fines were imposed on the cartel ringleaders and its ordinary members at rates of 9 and 7.5% of their turnover on the Community cartonboard market in 1990 respectively.

  The Court has explained the requirements regarding the information which the Commission must set out in its decisions when it systematically uses particular criteria in order to calculate the amount of fines.

  We would point out in particular that the "Cartonboard" decision was the first decision in which the Commission reduced the fines imposed on undertakings where they had cooperated with it. Depending on the degree of cooperation displayed by an undertaking, the Commission reduced its fine by one-third or by two-thirds.

  The Court of First Instance considers that the reductions granted by the Commission for cooperation afforded to it during the administrative procedure are justified only if the cooperation in question enabled the Commission to find an infringement more easily and to bring it to an end. Thus, an undertaking which expressly states that it is not contesting the factual allegations on which the Commission bases its objections may be regarded as having facilitated the Commission's task of finding and bringing to an end infringements of the Community competition rules.

  Lastly, the fact that the Court has found that undertakings which did not participate in meetings of the PWG could not be held responsible for collusion on market shares has not led to a reduction in the fines imposed on those undertakings.

  These cases involve the largest number of applicants and the highest total amount of fines since the Court of First Instance was created. In the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in regard to fines, the Court has reduced the fines by a total of ECU 11 420 000 (which includes that of ECU 3 250 000 imposed on Enso-Gutzeit, the Decision having been wholly annulled as regards that undertaking).

This release is an unofficial document issued for use by the media; it is not binding on the Court of First Instance. Available in: EN, FR, DE, NL, IT, ES.

For the text of the judgments in full, please consult our Internet website http://curia.eu.int from 3 p.m. today. For additional information, please contact Tom Kennedy Tel: (352) 4303 3355 fax: (352) 4303 2500.