# C_2010113EN.01006201.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/62

---

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case T-92/10)

2010/C 113/94

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy) and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, lawyer, S. Amoruso, lawyer, L. Vitolo, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, adopted on 30 September 2009 in Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption, as corrected and completed by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA had infringed Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and imposes upon them, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 10.25 million;
  in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, by which the penalty is imposed on the applicants;
  in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, adopted on 30 September 2009 in Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption, as corrected and completed by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA had infringed Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and imposes upon them, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 10.25 million;

Reinforcing bars, readoption

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final, by which the penalty is imposed on the applicants;

in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in other actions challenging Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final. In particular, the applicants allege:

| — | following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, lack of competence on the part of the Commission to penalise the infringement of Article 65 of that Treaty and, in any event, to use Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) as a legal basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, lack of competence on the part of the Commission to penalise the infringement of Article 65 of that Treaty and, in any event, to use Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) as a legal basis;

1

| — | breach of the applicants’ rights of defence during the procedure before the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the applicants’ rights of defence during the procedure before the Commission;

| — | infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as the facts described in Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final do not indicate a single and continuous offence; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as the facts described in Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final do not indicate a single and continuous offence;

| — | breach of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality;

On that last point, it is argued in particular that it was unlawful to place the applicants in the first category of undertakings, which were given the higher basic fine, since, in calculating the amount of the fine, the Commission misapplied the criterion of the undertaking’s specific weight on the market and did not uniformly apply the criterion of the undertaking’s overall size. Furthermore, the manner of conducting the procedure for calculating the fine was also incorrect with regard to the evaluation of the ‘attenuating circumstances’. Lastly, the excessive lengthiness of the procedure seriously compromised the right to an impartial ruling within a reasonable time.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).

1

---