EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/239/25

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreements — Seamless steel tubes market — Duration of the infringement — Fines)

OJ C 239, 25.9.2004, p. 12–12 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/12


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Agreements - Seamless steel tubes market - Duration of the infringement - Fines)

(2004/C 239/25)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by J. Pheasant and M. Readings, solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially M. Erhart and B. Doherty, then M. Erhart and A. Whelan) — application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1), or, alternatively, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

1.

Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) in so far as it establishes the existence of the infringement found in that article against the applicant as pre-dating 1 January 1991;

2.

Sets the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 11,700,000;

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.


(1)  OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


Top