Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-276/04)

(2004/C 262/63)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A., established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1992, the Commission imposed on, inter alia, the applicant a fine in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82) of the EC Treaty. The applicant brought an action against that decision and the Court of Justice, by judgment of 16 March 2000 (1), annulled the decision in so far as it imposed a fine on the applicant. Following that judgment, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which imposed a fine of EUR 3 400 000 on the applicant for the same infringements.

In support of its application for annulment of the latter decision, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission adopted its second decision at a time when the period within which it could reasonably do so had elapsed and that it is therefore estopped from taking action. The applicant also claims that the Commission breached its rights of defence by re-opening the procedure solely in relation to the question of the fine. According to the applicant, where the Commission imposes a fine, it must re-assess the infringements as at the date of its new decision and cannot, as in the present case, have regard to assessments of the facts made 12 years ago. The applicant also claims that the fine is unjustified, as the infringements have not been established. Lastly, the applicant argues that the fine is discriminatory and disproportionate, that it was imposed in breach of the Commission's customary practice and that it amounts to an abuse of power. The applicant maintains that it received virtually the entire fine imposed for alleged abuses of a dominant position by a conference in which it held less than one third of the rights.

(1)  Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P.