The Court of Justice considered that a reduction by ECU 50 000 of a fine of ECU 3 million imposed on an undertaking for breach of the competition rules constituted a "fair satisfaction" for the excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
On 2 August 1989 the Commission adopted Decision 89/515/EEC by which it imposed on 14 producers of welded steel mesh a fine for infringement of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. The unlawful restrictions of competition consisted in a series of agreements and/or concerted practices intended to fix prices and/or delivery quotas and to share markets for welded steel mesh. The agreements, according to the decision, concerned various parts of the common market (the French, German or Benelux markets) but affected trade between Member States because undertakings established in various Member States participated in them. One of the undertakings concerned, Baustahlgewebe GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, was fined ECU 4.5 million.
On 20 October 1989 Baustahlgewebe brought an action for the annulment of that decision before the Court of Justice. On 15 November 1989 the Court assigned the case to the Court of First Instance, which had been set up in September of the same year, together with the actions brought against the same decision by ten other producers of welded steel mesh. In Baustahlgewebe's case, the Court of First Instance, in its judgment of 6 April 1995, partially annulled the Commission decision and reduced the fine to ECU 3 million. On 14 June 1995, Baustahlgewebe brought an appeal before the Court of Justice seeking to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance set aside.
After detailed consideration of the matter, the Court of Justice rejected most of the arguments put forward by Baustahlgewebe, concluding that the Court of First Instance had given judgment in accordance with Community law.
As regards the argument alleging that the proceedings had been excessively protracted, the Court of Justice conceded, however, that the time the Court of First Instance had taken to give judgment was excessive. It pointed out that the general principle of Community law according to which everyone is entitled to a fair hearing is based on the fundamental rights laid down in the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and includes the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
However, Baustahlgewebe's appliction was lodged on 20 October 1989 and the case was completed on 6 April 1995, the date on which the disputed judgment was delivered, that is to say five years and six months later. The Court of Justice observed that the action by the appellant was one of 11 cases brought in three languages which were joined for the purposes of the hearing and called for a detailed examination of relatively voluminous documents and points of fact and law of some complexity.
The Court of Justice recognised that the structure of the Community judicial system, in particular the existence of a two-tier system of jurisdiction, means that the Court of First Instance, which alone has jurisdiction to establish the facts and consider the substance of the case, has more time to investigate particularly complex cases. However, that task does not relieve the Court of First Instance of the obligation to observe the principle that cases before it must be disposed of within a reasonable time.
In this case, the Court of Justice considered that there were no constraints inherent in the proceedings, connected with the use of different languages for example, or any exceptional circumstances such as to justify the period of 66 months between lodgment of the application and delivery of the judgment of the Court of First Instance. Whilst taking note of the complexity of the case, the Court of Justice concluded that the procedure before the Court of First Instance had been unreasonably protracted.
For reasons of procedural economy and in order to remedy that irregularity effectively, the Court of Justice decided to annul the disputed judgment inasmuch as it fixed the amount of the fine in the sum of ECU 3 million. On the other hand, given that there was no reason to conclude that the duration of the procedure had had any impact on the outcome of the case, the Court of Justice refused to accede to Baustahlgewebe’s request that the disputed judgment should be set aside in its entirety.
Considering that the sum of ECU 50 000 constituted a "fair satisfaction", having regard to the excessive duration of the case, the Court of Justice reduced the amount of the initial fine to ECU 2 950 000 and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.
Unofficial document for the use of the media, not binding on the Court of First Instance. This press release is available in all the official languages.
For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int at about 15.00 today. For further information please contact Tom Kennedy tel. (352) 4303 3355 or fax: (352) 4303 2500.