You are on page 1of 1

26.9.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 299/11

Appeal brought on 9 July 1998 by NV Koninklijke KNP judgment should be set aside. Moreover, the Court
BT against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the contravened general principles of law, in particular the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in principle of equal treatment and the principle of
Case T-309/94 between NV Koninklijke KNP BT and the proportionality, Article 190 of the EC Treaty and
Commission of the European Communities Article 15(6) of Council Regulation No 17 by fixing a
(Case C-248/98 P) fine on the basis of the Commission's alternative
method', that is to say by applying, without specifying
(98/C 299/19) more detailed reasons, a basic rate of 7,5 % for the
period following 1989 as well,

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Ð infringement of the rights of defence and the
Communities in Case T-309/94 between NV Koninklijke requirement to state reasons. The Court of First
KNP BT and the Commission of the European Instance infringed general principles of law, in
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of particular the principle of equal treatment and the
the European Communities on 9 July 1998 by NV principle of proportionality, Article 190 of the EC
Koninklijke KNP BT, represented by T. R. Ottervanger, Treaty and Article 15 of Regulation No 17 by fixing a
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the fine on a basis which included the internal turnover of
Chambers of Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 56Ð58 rue Charles Badische, a German subsidiary of KNP,
Martel.

The appellant claims that the Court should: Ð contrary to Community law (principle of equal
treatment, principle of proportionality, Article 190 of
the EC Treaty and, above all, Article 15 of Regulation
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of No 17) the Court of First Instance, when itself fixing
14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94 (1), the fine, wrongly took mid-1986 as the date on which
the infringement commenced as regards Badische as
well.
2. annul the Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 (IV/
33.833) and the fine imposed on the applicant, or
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 30.
reduce the fine, in accordance with the application
submitted on 7 October 1994 or, alternatively, refer
the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
ruling on the question whether that decision should (in
part) be declared void,

3. order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Circondariale di Firenze, by order of that court of 20 June
Justice. 1998, in criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carra,
Alessandra Colombo and Barbara Gianassi
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: (Case C-258/98)
(98/C 299/20)
Ð The highly defective statement of reasons for the
decision should have been grounds for the Court of
First Instance to annul it. In particular, the decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
gives no indication whatsoever of the method used by
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
the Commission used to determine a fine that is
Circondariale di Firenze (Magistrate's Court, District of
related to the turnover of the various undertakings for
Florence) of 20 June 1998, which was received at the
which KNP is held responsible and to the period
Court Registry on 15 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
during which and the extent to which each of them
in criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carra,
was involved in an infringement. By giving no, or
Alessandra Colombo and Barbara Gianassi on the
inadequate, reasons why the Court did not annul the
following questions:
decision, the Court infringed Article 190 of the EC
Treaty,

(a) Whether Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, as
Ð in its judgment the Court should have dealt with interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice of
KNP's plea that the Commission wrongly imposed a the European Communities of 11 December 1997 (1),
fine for the period from 1989, or (alternatively) that as have direct effect in the sense that they require
involvement was marginal, the Commission should Member States not to impose any general and
have imposed a much reduced fine. By wholly failing absolute prohibition of acting as an employment
to dealing with those particular circumstances, the agency and consequently require the national court to
Court infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty and the treat any activity as a private intermediary for the