Information Note on the Court’s case-law 62

March 2004

Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC] - 56672/00

Decision 10.3.2004 [GC]

Article 34

Victim

Quashing of fine imposed on applicant company by the European Commission: inadmissible

In 1998 the European Commiss ion imposed a fine of 13,750,000 euros on the applicant company for infringements of European Community competition rules. The applicant was informed that the fine would not be enforced immediately if an appeal was made, provided a bank guarantee was provi ded. The applicant challenged the decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (“the CFI”) and also requested dispensation from the requirement to provide a bank guarantee. This request was refused, the European Commission consid ering that the applicant’s holding company could provide the bank guarantee. The applicant’s subsequent request to the CFI for suspension of the operation of the decision imposing the fine was rejected by the President, who accepted that the applicant was unable to provide the guarantee but considered that account should be taken of the group of undertakings to which the applicant belonged. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the President of the Court of Justice of the European Co mmunities, who confirmed that it was permissible to have regard to the assets of the group of undertakings to which the applicant belonged. In 2003 the CFI quashed the fines which had been imposed in 1998. The applicant complained in particular that enforc ement of the fine before a judicial determination of the proceedings would have constituted a denial of the right of access to a court.

Inadmissible : The application concerns proceedings which had not ended when it was introduced. The fine was neither paid nor enforced and the applicant’s challenge to it was not merely heard but ended with the fine being quashed. Accordingly, the facts were never such as to permit the applicant to claim to be a victim of a violation. By the time of the final decision in 200 3 it was clear that the applicant could not produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting it would occur, because at that time it was certain that there was no justification for its fear of the fine being enforced before the CFI hearing. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes