# C_2006190EN.01001202.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/12

---

Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/06 P)

(2006/C 190/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Forms of order sought

| 1. | Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the appellant.

1

| 2. | Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002 (Case C.37.519 — Methionin) in so far as it affects the appellant.
  In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002 (Case C.37.519 — Methionin) in so far as it affects the appellant.

In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision;

| 3 | In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3

In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| 4. | The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes four pleas on appeal:

| — | First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. |
| --- | --- |

—

First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

| — | Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) and the basic right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) and the basic right to a fair hearing.

| — | Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality (in the form of the principle that punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even though the infringement had little impact on the price of methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality (in the form of the principle that punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even though the infringement had little impact on the price of methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons.

| — | Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addition to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addition to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 C 131, p. 37.

1

---