Notice for the OJ

 

    

Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-123/02)

    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 Carrs Paper Ltd., represented by Mr John Grayston and Mr André Bywater of Eversheds, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- fix the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of 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) at an amount substantially lower than EUR 1.57 million;

- annul Article 3, subparagraph 3, of the Decision as it concerns the applicant, alternatively fix the rate of interest specified therein at a rate substantially lower than 6.77%; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By 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 accepts that it infringed Article 81(1) EC and accepts that a fine may be imposed for its infringement. The applicant does however contest the gravity of the infringement in respect of which the Decision finds it liable.

The applicant submits that the Decision is inadequately reasoned and that the Commission made a manifest error in assessing the gravity of the applicant's infringement. The applicant maintains that it did not know that it was party to an infringement which extended beyond the UK and Ireland, and that the findings of the Decision in this respect are not supported by sufficient evidence and are inadequately reasoned. The applicant also alleges that the commercial pressure to which the applicant was subjected by the ringleader of the cartel mitigates the gravity of its infringement.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the fine is in any event disproportionate and should be significantly reduced. It points out that its participation in the cartel was marginal, that its cooperation with the Commission merits a reduction of more than 10% in the fine imposed, that the state of the carbonless paper industry at the time justifies a reduction in the fine and that the fine is disproportionate to the applicant's ability to pay a fine.

Finally, the applicant submits that Article 3 (3) of the Decision should be annulled, no reasons having been given for the imposition of a default interest rate of 6.77%, being a 3.5% premium over the ECB base rate.

____________