# C_2006108EN.01000202.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/2 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-76/06 P)

(2006/C 108/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. (represented by: S. Mobley, H. Bardell and M. Commons, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses the application brought by Britannia in respect of the Decision; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to Britannia; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision as it pertains to Britannia, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Britannia therein; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the ECJ as to the law; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in any event, order that the Commission bear its own costs and pay Britannia's costs relating to the proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that:

| 1) | the CFI infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62/EEC (‘Regulation 17’)( 1 ) by holding that the Commission lawfully applied the 10 % turnover cap under Article 15(2) to Britannia's turnover for the business year ending 30 June 1996, rather than the business year preceding the adoption of the Decision; |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2) | the CFI infringed the principle of equality:
a)
by upholding the Commission's discrimination between undertakings being in essentially the same situation by applying the 10 % turnover cap, in the case of Britannia, to the last year of what the Commission considers ‘normal economic activity’, and, in the case of all other undertakings to whom the Decision was addressed, to the business year preceding the Decision; and b)
by upholding the Commission's Decision which discriminates against Britannia in relation to the year to which the 10 % turnover cap is applicable in comparison with its practice in other directly comparable cases; | a) | by upholding the Commission's discrimination between undertakings being in essentially the same situation by applying the 10 % turnover cap, in the case of Britannia, to the last year of what the Commission considers ‘normal economic activity’, and, in the case of all other undertakings to whom the Decision was addressed, to the business year preceding the Decision; and | b) | by upholding the Commission's Decision which discriminates against Britannia in relation to the year to which the 10 % turnover cap is applicable in comparison with its practice in other directly comparable cases; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| a) | by upholding the Commission's discrimination between undertakings being in essentially the same situation by applying the 10 % turnover cap, in the case of Britannia, to the last year of what the Commission considers ‘normal economic activity’, and, in the case of all other undertakings to whom the Decision was addressed, to the business year preceding the Decision; and | | | | |
| b) | by upholding the Commission's Decision which discriminates against Britannia in relation to the year to which the 10 % turnover cap is applicable in comparison with its practice in other directly comparable cases; | | | | |

| 3) | the CFI infringed the principle of legal certainty:
a)
by upholding the Commission's use of a year other than the preceding business year in applying the turnover cap in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. Certainty is required as to the absolute maximum level of penalty that might be imposed; and b)
by interpreting Article 15(2) Regulation 17 in a way which imposes a penalty which does not correspond to the penalty laid down when the infringement was committed, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of undertakings. | a) | by upholding the Commission's use of a year other than the preceding business year in applying the turnover cap in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. Certainty is required as to the absolute maximum level of penalty that might be imposed; and | b) | by interpreting Article 15(2) Regulation 17 in a way which imposes a penalty which does not correspond to the penalty laid down when the infringement was committed, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of undertakings. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| a) | by upholding the Commission's use of a year other than the preceding business year in applying the turnover cap in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. Certainty is required as to the absolute maximum level of penalty that might be imposed; and | | | | |
| b) | by interpreting Article 15(2) Regulation 17 in a way which imposes a penalty which does not correspond to the penalty laid down when the infringement was committed, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of undertakings. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  EEC Council: Regulation no 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 013, 21.02.1962, p. 204-211)

---