I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Appeal – Competition – Cartel – Market in methionine – Fine – Regulation No 17 – Article 15(2) – Nulla poena sine lege – Distortion of the facts – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment
3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 72-74, 86, 94)
4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the appraisal at first instance of the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Not included – Whether it may review that appraisal on the ground that the principle of non-discrimination was infringed – Included (Art. 81(1), EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 95, 114)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission, in which that Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) – Cartel concerning the market in methionine – Requirements of the principle of nulla poena sine lege in relation to the system of fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to bear the costs;
3.Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs.