# C_2005155EN.01002702.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

---

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-161/05)

(2005/C 155/53)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and U. Itzen, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's Decision of 17 February 2005, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's Decision of 17 February 2005, in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | or, in the alternative, reduce the fine laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, reduce the fine laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision as appropriate;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In contested Decision No C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 the Commission asserted that the applicant and other companies had infringed Article 81(1) EC (and, since 1 January 1994, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement as well) by allocating volume quotas and customers, agreeing price increases, setting up a compensation mechanism, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, meeting regularly and being involved in other forms of contact, in order to agree on and implement the restrictions described. A fine was imposed on the applicant as a result of these infringements.

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its claim. First of all, it contends that, as a result of the separation and subsequent transfer of the business in question, no fine can be imposed on it for legal reasons.

Secondly, the claimant submits that the imposition of a fine is inadmissible even if the applicant's liability for a fine is accepted, given that exemption was granted to the successor parent company of the company which made the application for exemption, but not to the applicant as its former parent company. In that respect, the applicant complains that there is no obvious legal ground for such differentiation.

The third plea concerns the calculation of the fine. According to the applicant, as a result of the 1996 Leniency Notice the fine should have been reduced by 10 % given that it expressly accepted the essential facts which form the basis of the points of the complaint.

The applicant complains further that the calculation of the basic amount was disproportionate in both absolute and relative terms and unreasonable, in the light of the Commission's usual decision-making practice.

Fifthly, the applicant objects to the option to increase fines to take account of previous procedures, to which specific reference was made, and argues, in the alternative, that the principle non bis in idem was infringed.

non bis in idem

For the remainder, the applicant complains that it was given no access to the files and of the gross illegality of the hearing officers' report and finally, of the legality of the order to bring the infringement to an end.

---