You are on page 1of 1

26.9.

98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 299/15

Article 172 of the EC Treaty: unlike in the case of the other parties involved, the Court did not hold that its finding that the appellant had participated in the cartel for a shorter period should be reflected by an appropriate reduction in the fine. When assessing the gravity of the infringement the Court of First Instance wrongly took the view that the absence of economic effects of the infringement was not a mitigating factor in regard to the fine. Lastly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding that the appellant's cooperation should not be taken into account so as to reduce the fine.
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 32. (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.

considerably on the ground that such statement of reasons was inadequate; 2. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to the extent to which the Court of First Instance does not consider that, by not taking account of the effects of the devaluation of the peseta against the ecu, the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment or, in the alternative, reduce the fine so as to take account of that devaluation; 3. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to the extent to which it does not order the Commission to pay, at first instance, the totality of the costs and interest deriving from the security for or possible payment of all or part of the fine, and decide that the interest accruing on the fine accrues only from the time at which the judgment of the Court of First Instance becomes enforceable, and consequently order the Commission to pay the costs and interest connected with security for or possible payment of the fine; 2. order the respondent in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs, and give a decision to the effect that the costs be paid by the defendant at first instance in the event of the present appeal being held to be wholly or partly well founded. Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Ð Infringement of Community law: Ð misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 190 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as regards the lack of a statement of the reasons on which the Decision was based in relation to the fine, Ð misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment through failure by the Court of First Instance correctly to evaluate the devaluations of the Spanish peseta which gave rise to an increase in the fine to be paid by ENSO Espanola, SA as compared with the fines to be Ä paid by other undertakings whose currencies have not lost value or have indeed increased in value, Ð incoherent reasoning on the part of the Court of First Instance regarding its failure to order the Commission to pay the costs and interest deriving from the provision of security for or payment of the fine.
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 36.

Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso Espanola, SA Ä against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-348/94 between Enso Espanola, SA and the Ä Commission of the European Communities (Case C-282/98 P) (98/C 299/25)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-348/94 between Enso Espanola, SA and the Ä Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 1998 by Enso Espanola, SA, represented by Ä Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, Avenue d'Auderghem 78, Brussels. The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should: 1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-348/94 (1) to the extent set out below and draw all the legal consequences of the setting aside of that judgment, whether it gives a decision on the substance itself or refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment, and in particular: 1. annul the contested judgment to the extent to which it treats the Decision as not infringing Article 190 of the EC Treaty as far as the fine is concerned and, in consequence, annul the fine on the ground of lack of a statement of the reasons for the Decision or, in the alternative, reduce it