# C_2006060EN.01004201.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/42

---

Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Aman & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission

(Case T-446/05)

(2006/C 60/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim, Germany) and Cousin Filterie S.A.S. (Wervicq, France) (represented by: A. Röhling and M. Dietrich)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicants;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants to an appropriate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants to an appropriate amount;

| — | 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

The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/Thread (supplemented by the defendant's decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005). In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicants for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

In support of their application the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

First, they allege infringement of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1). In this connection they submit that the Commission erred in law in Article 1 of the contested decision in assuming three separate infringements of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. In reality there was one single infringement within the terms of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003. Furthermore, the defendant erred in establishing the duration of the infringement.

1

In their second plea in law the applicants submit that there has been an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (2) or of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In their opinion the Commission infringed those provisions in imposing fines exceeding ten percent of the total worldwide turnover of the Amann Group.

2

Furthermore, the contested decision of the Commission infringes the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

Fourthly, Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG alleges the incorrect application of the Guidelines regarding industrial sewing threads due to wrongful differentiation in establishing the initial amount, incorrect calculation as regards the duration of the infringement and wrongful failure to take account of extenuating circumstances.

The applicants submit incorrect application of the Guidelines regarding the automobile industry as their fifth plea in law. That infringement by the Commission, they submit, lies in incorrect calculation of the basic amount and failure to take account of the fact that the infringement was not implemented.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the defendant infringed the right to a fair hearing pursuant to Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the applicants' rights of defence under Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

(2)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

2

---