You are on page 1of 1

C 299/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.9.

98

Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö 2. incorrectly held that its own conclusion that the
Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May Commission had failed to prove all the alleged effects
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the of the infringement could not materially affect its
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in assessment of the gravity of the infringement and
Case T-352/94 (1) between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag thus could not lead to a reduction in the fine.
and the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-283/98 P) (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
(98/C 299/26) (3) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
(Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).
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-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö Appeal brought on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
Aktiebolag, whose registered address is at S-89180 Bergslags AB against the judgment delivered on 14 May
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
and Martin Smith, Solicitors, of Simmons & Simmons, Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Case T-354/94 (1) between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias AB and the Commission of the European Communities
Hardt.
(Case C-286/98 P)

The appellant claims that the Court should: (98/C 299/27)

(i) annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 at least in part; 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
(ii) annul Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July Case T-354/94 between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
1994 relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of and the Commission of the European Communities, was
the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) in so brought before the Court of Justice of the European
far as it relates to the appellant at least in part; Communities on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
Bergslags AB, whose registered address is at S-79180
Falun, Sweden, represented by Alexander Riesenkampff
(iii) cancel or at least reduce the amount of the fine and Stefan Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, of Hasche Eschenlohr
imposed on the Appellant; Peltzer Riesenkampff Fischötter, Brussels, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rene Faltz,
Faltz & Kremer, 6, rue Heinrich Heine.
(iv) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs
before this Court and before the Court of First
Instance.
The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94 and annul
The appellant relies on grounds of appeal based on an Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
infringement of Community law in particular of relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of the EC
Articles 85, 172, 173 and 190 of the EC Treaty and of Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) because the
Council Regulation No 17 (3) and of the general principles Court of First Instance's conclusions were made on the
of Community law. basis of substantive errors of Community law which:

The appellant raises grounds of appeal including that the (i) infringe Articles 85 and 15(2) of Council
Court of First Instance: Regulation No 17 (3) in that the appellant is held
responsible for the conduct of its subsidiaries
Kopparfors, Feldmühle and CBC without regard
1. incorrectly held that the Commission's failure to set
to the legal criteria developed by the European
out in the decision the factors of which it had
Courts and the Commission for the imputation
systematically taken account when fixing the
of infringements committed by subsidiaries;
appellant's fine was not an infringement of the duty
to state reasons such as would justify annulment in
whole or in part of the decision and of the fine (ii) infringe the rules regarding the burden of proof
imposed; in that, with respect to the imputation of the