Notice for the OJ

 

    

Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-62/02)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS, represented by Mr Trygve Olavson Laake and Mr Jan Magne Langseth of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Stavanger (Norway).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, in the alternative, reduce the duration of the infringement in so far as it concerns the applicant;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the fine imposed upon the applicant by Article 3(f) of the Decision, or, in the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1grant its request for measures of organisation of procedure including the summoning and hearing of witnesses and access to the Commission's report from the Hearing;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Decision which is challenged in this case is the same as that in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals -v- Commission. The grounds and main arguments are similar to those raised in that case.

In particular, the applicant submits:

- that the Commission has based its calculation of the fine on an incorrect assessment of the evidence and facts of the case. Firstly, the Commission found that all addressees of the Decision committed an infringement of the same duration, 4 years and 1 month. In so doing, the Commission should have not taken into account that Waardals' infringement ceased between April 1995 and August 1995. The defendant should have ignored the fact that the applicant withdrew from the cartel and terminated its infringements immediately following the investigations.

- that the Commission incorrectly calculated the fine and incorrectly applied the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. On this point, the applicant states that the fine was increased on the basis of the duration of the infringement and because of the fact that the Commission did not differentiate between the members of the cartel in an appropriate manner. Moreover, the Commission has not taken into account that the applicant was invited to join a cartel that already existed, and that it never was part of the "inner circle", nor has the Commission taken into account that Waardals implemented the agreements in question only to a very slight degree. In setting the fines, the defendant consequently infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality and misapplied the Guidelines mentioned above.

____________