Notice for the OJ

 

    

Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-118/02)

    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 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited, represented by Mr François Brunet, Mr John Temple Lang and Mr Jacob Grierson of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Paris (France).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul or, alternatively, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant pursuant to Commission Decision C(2001)4573 final corr. of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 - Carbonless paper);

- order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the contested Decision, the Commission found that the applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices by which they fixed price increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the restrictive agreements.

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in respect of each of the stages of its calculation of the applicant's fine:

- It imposed an amount for "gravity" (EUR 70 million) that was disproportionately high;

- it increased this amount by 100% for "deterrence" for no good reason;

- it imposed a further increase of 50% for "leadership" which was entirely disproportionate to the role played by the applicant; and

- it granted an insufficient reduction for cooperation.

In addition, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed to take account of the economic difficulties of the carbonless paper market as an attenuating circumstance to reduce the level of the fine; it breached the applicant's rights of defence; and it made a series of mistakes of a kind that it ought not to have made in a decision imposing a EUR 185 million fine.

The applicant submits that the combination of these errors resulted in almost 60% of the total of the fines handed down being imposed on the applicant alone, which is clearly out of proportion to the applicant's market share.

____________