# C_2010301EN.01004201.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/42

---

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

(Case T-382/10)

()

2010/C 301/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Villeroy & Boch (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Philippe and K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the contested decision null and void in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested decision null and void in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, in consequence, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in consequence, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fixtures and fittings) concerning a cartel on the Belgian, German, French, Italian, Netherlands and Austrian markets in bathroom fixtures and fittings for the coordination of sales prices and the exchange of sensitive business information.

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

| — | breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA as a result of classifying the infringement as a single, complex and continuous infringement, since the defendant thus failed to comply with its duty in law to assess the individual conduct of each of the undertakings to which the decision is addressed; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA as a result of classifying the infringement as a single, complex and continuous infringement, since the defendant thus failed to comply with its duty in law to assess the individual conduct of each of the undertakings to which the decision is addressed;

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since the defendant failed to provide a sufficiently precise definition of the relevant markets in the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since the defendant failed to provide a sufficiently precise definition of the relevant markets in the contested decision;

| — | lack of sufficient evidence concerning the applicant’s participation in infringements in France; |
| --- | --- |

—

lack of sufficient evidence concerning the applicant’s participation in infringements in France;

| — | breach of the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence, laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter and Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) since the defendant imposed a fine jointly and severally on the applicant and its parent company; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence, laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter and Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) since the defendant imposed a fine jointly and severally on the applicant and its parent company;

nulla poena sine lege

1

| — | mis-calculation of the fine, since the defendant included some of the applicant’s turnover which had no connection with the objections raised when the fine was calculated; |
| --- | --- |

—

mis-calculation of the fine, since the defendant included some of the applicant’s turnover which had no connection with the objections raised when the fine was calculated;

| — | breach of Article 41 of the Charter, since the excessive length of the procedure was not taken into account when the fine was calculated; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 41 of the Charter, since the excessive length of the procedure was not taken into account when the fine was calculated;

| — | breach of the principle of the proportionality of penalties and errors of assessment when the fine was calculated, since the basic amount was set at 15 % and the absolute amount of the fine exceeded the limit of 10 % of the applicant’s turnover. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of the proportionality of penalties and errors of assessment when the fine was calculated, since the basic amount was set at 15 % and the absolute amount of the fine exceeded the limit of 10 % of the applicant’s turnover.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---