This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/223/06
Case C-327/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
Case C-327/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
Case C-327/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.9.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 223/6 |
Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
(Case C-327/07 P)
(2007/C 223/06)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Bolloré SA (represented by: C. Momège and P. Gassenbach, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, first, it infringed the rights of defence of Bolloré SA and the principle of the presumption of innocence and, second, distorted the evidence in order to establish the duration of the infringement; |
|
— |
give final judgment in Case T-109/02, in accordance with Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and annul Commission Decision 2004/337/EC 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) (1) in so far as it relates to Bolloré SA or, in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Bolloré SA by the Commission and confirmed by the Court of First Instance; |
|
— |
in the event that the Court does not itself decide on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's judgment; |
|
— |
finally, in accordance with Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, order the Commission to pay the costs both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
By its first plea, which is in two parts, it claims, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence by not annulling the above mentioned Commission decision even though it finds, in the judgment under appeal, that the statement of objections did not enable the appellant to acquaint itself with the objection based on its direct involvement in the infringement, or even with the facts established by the Commission in support of that objection, so that the appellant was unable properly to defend itself during the administrative procedure.
Second, the rights of the defence were also infringed in so far as the Court of First Instance held that the fact that the Commission erred in law cannot justify annulment of the contested decision since it could not have had a decisive effect on the operative part of that decision. In the appellant's submission, the statement of objections plays such a fundamental role in Community competition law that failure to comply with the rules governing the statement of objections relating to the identification and determination of responsibility should have led irremediably to the annulment of the contested decision.
By its second plea, the appellant submits further that, in order to establish the duration of the infringement and set the amount of the fine payable by Bolloré accordingly, the Court of First Instance, first, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence by relying on mere indications which are substantiated and, second, distorted the evidence relating to the value placed on the statements of another company (Arjo Wiggins Appleton) and to the alleged anti-competitive object of an official meeting of the Association of European Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper held in Zürich on 23 January 1992.