# C_2010301EN.01006001.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/60

---

Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Ori Martin v Commission

(Case T-419/10)

()

2010/C 301/96

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ori Martin SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Ziotti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel), in so far as it attributes to the applicant liability for the conduct penalised; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel), in so far as it attributes to the applicant liability for the conduct penalised;

| — | annulment or reduction of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment or reduction of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision;

| — | an order that the Commission should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in this case is the same as that in Case T-385/10 Arcelor/Mittal Wire France v Commission.

Arcelor/Mittal Wire France

Commission

The applicant maintains that the European Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 is unlawful in that it makes the applicant liable solely because it (almost) wholly owns the company which is alleged to have committed the collusive acts penalised under Article 101 TFEU.

In particular, the applicant pleads:

| — | infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/23, in that the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred in the circumstances of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/23, in that the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred in the circumstances of the case;

| — | infringement of Article 101 TFEU and breach of the principles of the personal nature of liability and penalties, of sound administration and non-discrimination, in that the Commission goes so far as to attribute to the applicant real and personal strict liability for the possibly unlawful acts committed by the company it controls, liability subject to an irrebuttable presumption which cannot in point of fact be challenged by evidence to the contrary. That liability on the basis of ownership is unexampled and contrary to the principles laid down by Community case-law in relation to the application of Article 101 TFEU when groups of companies are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 101 TFEU and breach of the principles of the personal nature of liability and penalties, of sound administration and non-discrimination, in that the Commission goes so far as to attribute to the applicant real and personal strict liability for the possibly unlawful acts committed by the company it controls, liability subject to an irrebuttable presumption which cannot in point of fact be challenged by evidence to the contrary. That liability on the basis of ownership is unexampled and contrary to the principles laid down by Community case-law in relation to the application of Article 101 TFEU when groups of companies are concerned;

| — | breach of the principle that capital companies enjoy limited liability by virtue of the company law common to the laws of the Member States and to the law of the European Union itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle that capital companies enjoy limited liability by virtue of the company law common to the laws of the Member States and to the law of the European Union itself.

Ori Martin then seeks annulment or, at least, a considerable reduction of the fine imposed.

---