The Court of First Instance has in the main upheld the Commission decision imposing fines for price-fixing, market-sharing and exchanges of confidential information by steel undertakings contrary to the ECSC Treaty.
By decision of 16 February 1994 the Commission found that seventeen European steel undertakings and their trade association Eurofer had participated in a series of agreements, decisions and concerted practices designed to fix prices, share markets and exchange confidential information on the Community market for steel beams, which are essential components in steel structures. By that decision the Commission imposed fines on fourteen of those undertakings, the total amount of the fines exceeding ECU 104 000 000.
Ten of those undertakings and Eurofer applied to the Court of First Instance for annulment of that decision or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on them. In particular, the applicants submitted that their procedural rights had been infringed and that the Commission had misinterpreted the competition rules under the ECSC Treaty. They also claimed that the Commission had been implicated in the practices in question and that the fines were disproportionate.
These cases were quite novel. Never before had the Community Courts been requested to rule on the application to undertakings of the system of competition specific to the ECSC Treaty (Article 65). In the course of the Court's examination of the cases, the Commission lodged a total of some 11 000 documents relating to its decision. This volume of documentation and the complexity of the cases necessitated meticulous examination and made it necessary to adopt special measures of procedural organisation. In particular, the Court ordered the production of certain documents relating to the contacts established between the Commission and the steel industry during the period in question as well as summoning a number of witnesses to appear before it.
In its eleven judgments delivered today, the Court of First Instance upheld most of the Commission's findings of fact and their characterisation as infringements of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, while annulling a number of minor points in the decision because of insufficient evidence. The Court also rejected as unfounded the accusations that the Commission had been involved in the infringements.
While it took the view that the general level of the fines imposed was justified by reason of the serious nature of the infringements, the Court none the less considered that the Commission had to some extent exaggerated their anti-competitive effect and reduced the fines accordingly. The Court also concluded in three cases that the Commission had misapplied the concept of recidivist conduct, on the ground that the undertakings in question had never been penalised for similar infringements prior to the events at issue in the present cases.
The amounts of the fines imposed by the Commission and those set by the Court are indicated on the table attached. The Court ordered the applicants to pay their own costs and part of the costs incurred by the Commission.
N.B. Appeals against these judgments of the Court of First Instance, limited to issues of law, may be brought before the Court of Justice within two months of notification.
|
Exclusively for media use - Unofficial document not binding on the Court of First Instance Available in English, German, Spanish and French N.B. Exceptionally, the judgments will not be published in full because of the similarities of the cases. The full text of one judgment which is representative of the "Steel Beams" cases (judgment in Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission) will be available in all languages on the Court's Internet site: www.curia.eu.int at around 3 p.m. today. The other judgments will be available only in the original languages of the cases. They will, however, subsequently be published in the other languages in extract form, limited to points of general significance. For further information, please contact Tom Kennedy (tel. (00352) 4303 3355; fax: (00352) 4303 2500). |
|
Case No |
Applicant |
State |
Fine imposed by the Commission (Ecu) |
Revised fine (Euros) |
% of reduction |
|
T-134/94 |
NMH Stahlwerke GmbH |
D |
150 000 |
110 000 |
26.66 |
|
T-136/94 |
Eurofer ASBL |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
T-137/94 |
ARBED SA |
L |
11 200 000 |
10 000 000 |
10.71 |
|
T-138/94 |
Cockerill Sambre SA |
B |
4 000 000 |
3 580 000 |
10.50 |
|
T-141/94 |
Thyssen Stahl AG |
D |
6 500 000 |
4 400 000 |
32.31 * |
|
T-145/94 |
Unimétal SA |
F |
12 300 000 |
8 300 000 |
32.52 * |
|
T-147/94 |
Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG |
D |
13 000 |
9 000 |
30.77 |
|
T-148/94 |
Preussag-Stahl AG |
D |
9 500 000 |
8 600 000 |
9.47 |
|
T-151/94 |
British Steel |
UK |
32 000 000 |
20 000 000 |
37.50 * |
|
T-156/94 |
Sidérúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL |
E |
10 600 000 |
7 100 000 |
33.02 + |
|
T-157/94 |
Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA |
E |
4 000 000 |
3 350 000 |
16.25 |
*annulment of the increase in the fine imposed on the applicant on grounds of re-offending
+reduction in the fine attributable in large measure to the applicant's own mistake in calculating its turnover