# C_2006060EN.01004301.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/43 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 27 December 2005 — Belgian Sewing Thread v Commission

(Case T-452/05)

(2006/C 60/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread N.V. (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should:

| (a) | in the action for annulment:
—
annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established therein to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and Article 2 of the Decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant; —
in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision; —
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings; | — | annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established therein to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and Article 2 of the Decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant; | — | in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision; | — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established therein to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and Article 2 of the Decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant; | | | | | | |
| — | in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision; | | | | | | |
| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings; | | | | | | |

| (b) | in the action for compensation:
—
find that the Commission is liable under Articles 235 and 288 EC; —
order the Commission to pay all the damage suffered and yet to be suffered by the applicant as result of the Commission's publication of the applicant's internal price lists; —
order the Commission to pay interest on the damages, at 8 % per annum with effect from the moment when the Commission was at fault; —
order the Commission, pending the outcome of an expert's report, to pay in advance compensation of EUR 705 812; —
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. | — | find that the Commission is liable under Articles 235 and 288 EC; | — | order the Commission to pay all the damage suffered and yet to be suffered by the applicant as result of the Commission's publication of the applicant's internal price lists; | — | order the Commission to pay interest on the damages, at 8 % per annum with effect from the moment when the Commission was at fault; | — | order the Commission, pending the outcome of an expert's report, to pay in advance compensation of EUR 705 812; | — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | find that the Commission is liable under Articles 235 and 288 EC; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | order the Commission to pay all the damage suffered and yet to be suffered by the applicant as result of the Commission's publication of the applicant's internal price lists; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | order the Commission to pay interest on the damages, at 8 % per annum with effect from the moment when the Commission was at fault; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | order the Commission, pending the outcome of an expert's report, to pay in advance compensation of EUR 705 812; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. | | | | | | | | | | |

Pleas in law and main arguments

First of all, the applicant contests the Commission's decision of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case 38.337 — PO/Thread) insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established there to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and seeks the annulment or at least a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on it.

The applicant states that the infringement committed by it was wrongly classified as very serious. The Commission thereby infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003( 1 ), and also the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the applicant had not played any role whatsoever in the conception and organisation of the infringement, did not participate in the meetings in question with a view to making agreements restrictive of competition, and the fact that the applicant never implemented the agreements.

The applicant also challenges its placement in the second category for determination of the basic amount, and the size of the basic amount imposed. According to the applicant, the Commission overrated the possibility of the applicant having a real impact on competition, both in an absolute sense in comparison with the impact of the other undertakings involved but also in the light of the applicant's precarious financial situation and the limited size of the market. It also submits in that connection that the Commission infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003, the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons.

According to the applicant, the Commission also wrongly assessed attenuating circumstances in relation to the applicant and infringed the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons. The Commission ought to have taken into account as attenuating circumstances the fact that the applicant did not implement the agreements made and that it had played a very limited and passive role.

According to the applicant, a much too small a reduction in the fine imposed was granted to it on account of its cooperation with the investigation, in breach of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of equality and proportionality and the Leniency Notice.

Finally, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered by it as result of the Commission's infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the obligation of secrecy, by publishing the applicant's internal price lists.

---

( 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)

---