# C_2010317EN.01003601.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/36

---

Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Redaelli Tecna v Commission

(Case T-423/10)

()

2010/C 317/65

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Redaelli Tecna SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Zaccà, M. Todino and E. Cruellas Sada, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that Redaelli participated in the cartel referred to in the decision throughout the period 1984-1992. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that Redaelli participated in the cartel referred to in the decision throughout the period 1984-1992.

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected Redaelli’s request for leniency and, consequently, grant an appropriate reduction in the amount of the fine, on account of the cooperation given by Redaelli in the Commission’s investigation by means of that request. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected Redaelli’s request for leniency and, consequently, grant an appropriate reduction in the amount of the fine, on account of the cooperation given by Redaelli in the Commission’s investigation by means of that request.

| — | Further reduce, on ground of equity, the fine imposed on Redaelli by way of compensation for the unreasonable length of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Further reduce, on ground of equity, the fine imposed on Redaelli by way of compensation for the unreasonable length of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

ArcellorMittal Wire France and Others

Commission

In particular, the applicant submits that:

| — | The Commission committed a serious infringement of the principle of equal treatment by applying stricter standards only to Redaelli and refusing to grant it leniency, which, conversely, was granted to other undertakings whose requests for leniency contributed little in terms of ‘added value’, and considerably less than the added value contributed by the applicant. In so doing, the Commission also infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because, essentially, it disregarded the applicant’s legitimate expectation that its own request would be assessed in the light of the criteria developed in the Commission’s practice at the time of the request, which were laid down in the 2002 Notice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission committed a serious infringement of the principle of equal treatment by applying stricter standards only to Redaelli and refusing to grant it leniency, which, conversely, was granted to other undertakings whose requests for leniency contributed little in terms of ‘added value’, and considerably less than the added value contributed by the applicant. In so doing, the Commission also infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because, essentially, it disregarded the applicant’s legitimate expectation that its own request would be assessed in the light of the criteria developed in the Commission’s practice at the time of the request, which were laid down in the 2002 Notice.

| — | The Commission claimed incorrectly that the parties were involved in the cartel during the period 1984-1992 but has failed to adduce sufficient evidence concerning the existence of the cartel throughout the period in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission claimed incorrectly that the parties were involved in the cartel during the period 1984-1992 but has failed to adduce sufficient evidence concerning the existence of the cartel throughout the period in question.

| — | The unreasonable length of the administrative procedure adversely affected the applicant’s rights of defence, as a result of which it was required to obtain exculpatory evidence after it had ceased to be available, and also had a negative impact on the actual assessment of the applicant’s request for leniency. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unreasonable length of the administrative procedure adversely affected the applicant’s rights of defence, as a result of which it was required to obtain exculpatory evidence after it had ceased to be available, and also had a negative impact on the actual assessment of the applicant’s request for leniency.

---