# C_2010301EN.01004602.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/46 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 13 September 2010 — SLM v Commission

(Case T-389/10)

()

2010/C 301/74

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (Ceprano, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer, and F. Covone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final, adopted on 30 June 2010 in Case COMP.38.344 — Pre-stressing steel; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed. |
| - | -------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-385/10 Arcelormittal Wire France and Others v Commission.

The applicant company submits:

| | In support of its claim that the decision should be annulled: the unusual and unjustifiable length of the administrative procedure, which seriously compromised the applicant’s exercise of the rights of defence, especially in relation to the facts of the two-year period from 1997 to 1999, that is to say, facts pre-dating by 10 years the statement of objections of September 2008. |
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| | In support of its claim that the fine should be reduced:
Failure to state adequate reasons for the quantification of the penalty, in so far as it remains unclear on the basis of which calculation and which turnover the Commission penalised the applicant. Breach of the upper limit of 10 % of turnover. Failure to state adequate reasons for the increases applied. Misapplication of the 2006 Guidelines on the setting of fines, and also the 1998 Guidelines, in force not only at the material time, but also during the first four years of the procedure. Erroneous assessment of the duration of the applicant’s participation in the cartel, not based on objective findings. Failure on a number of occasions to take account of mitigating circumstances: the demonstrably secondary role played by the applicant in the events at issue; the applicant’s limited market share; and the ineffectiveness of the cartel. The Commission is now time-barred, since no measure was adopted to stop time from running during the five-year period following the surprise inspection. | | Failure to state adequate reasons for the quantification of the penalty, in so far as it remains unclear on the basis of which calculation and which turnover the Commission penalised the applicant. | | Breach of the upper limit of 10 % of turnover. | | Failure to state adequate reasons for the increases applied. | | Misapplication of the 2006 Guidelines on the setting of fines, and also the 1998 Guidelines, in force not only at the material time, but also during the first four years of the procedure. | | Erroneous assessment of the duration of the applicant’s participation in the cartel, not based on objective findings. | | Failure on a number of occasions to take account of mitigating circumstances: the demonstrably secondary role played by the applicant in the events at issue; the applicant’s limited market share; and the ineffectiveness of the cartel. | | The Commission is now time-barred, since no measure was adopted to stop time from running during the five-year period following the surprise inspection. |
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ---------------------------------------------- | | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| | Failure to state adequate reasons for the quantification of the penalty, in so far as it remains unclear on the basis of which calculation and which turnover the Commission penalised the applicant. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Breach of the upper limit of 10 % of turnover. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Failure to state adequate reasons for the increases applied. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Misapplication of the 2006 Guidelines on the setting of fines, and also the 1998 Guidelines, in force not only at the material time, but also during the first four years of the procedure. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Erroneous assessment of the duration of the applicant’s participation in the cartel, not based on objective findings. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Failure on a number of occasions to take account of mitigating circumstances: the demonstrably secondary role played by the applicant in the events at issue; the applicant’s limited market share; and the ineffectiveness of the cartel. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | The Commission is now time-barred, since no measure was adopted to stop time from running during the five-year period following the surprise inspection. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---