# C_2010301EN.01005302.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/53

---

Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-402/10)

()

2010/C 301/85

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Villeroy & Boch — Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns Villeroy & Boch Belgium N.V./S.A; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns Villeroy & Boch Belgium N.V./S.A;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant; and also |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant; and also

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fixtures and fittings, relating to an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU on the market for taps, shower cabins and ceramic products.

Bathroom fixtures and fittings

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its action:

| — | breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and settled case-law in so far as the Commission incorrectly assumed that there had been a single and continuous infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and settled case-law in so far as the Commission incorrectly assumed that there had been a single and continuous infringement;

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons flowing from Article 296(2) TFEU on account of an inadequate and defective statement of reasons in relation to the finding of a single and continuous infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons flowing from Article 296(2) TFEU on account of an inadequate and defective statement of reasons in relation to the finding of a single and continuous infringement;

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to the applicant’s alleged participation in the infringement of which it stands accused on the Belgian market and absence of evidence that the applicant participated in that infringement on the Belgian market; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to the applicant’s alleged participation in the infringement of which it stands accused on the Belgian market and absence of evidence that the applicant participated in that infringement on the Belgian market;

| — | the joint and several liability for the fine imposed on the applicant and its parent company infringes the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence pursuant to Article 49(3) in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter, and infringement of Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

the joint and several liability for the fine imposed on the applicant and its parent company infringes the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence pursuant to Article 49(3) in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter, and infringement of Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;

nulla poena sine lege

| — | miscalculation of the amount of the fine, since that amount relates to certain turnover which has no connection with the infringement of which the applicant stands accused; |
| --- | --- |

—

miscalculation of the amount of the fine, since that amount relates to certain turnover which has no connection with the infringement of which the applicant stands accused;

| — | breach of Article 41 of the Charter, since the disproportionate length of the procedure did not result in a reduction of the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 41 of the Charter, since the disproportionate length of the procedure did not result in a reduction of the fine;

| — | breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 on account of the incorrect setting of the fine in the light of the gravity of the infringement and incorrect setting of the ‘deterrent factor’, as well as the disproportionate amount of the fine in absolute terms. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 on account of the incorrect setting of the fine in the light of the gravity of the infringement and incorrect setting of the ‘deterrent factor’, as well as the disproportionate amount of the fine in absolute terms.

---