# C_2006074EN.01002501.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/25

---

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission

(Case T-450/05)

(2006/C 74/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Automobiles Peugeot SA (Paris, France) and Peugeot Nederland NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. d'Ormesson and N. Zacharie, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision in the entirety of its operative part and the grounds supporrting it; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision in the entirety of its operative part and the grounds supporrting it;

| — | alternatively, vary Article 3 of the Decision and the grounds supporting it by reducing the fine of EUR 49.5 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, vary Article 3 of the Decision and the grounds supporting it by reducing the fine of EUR 49.5 million;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this action the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005)3683 final of 5 October 2005 adopted as part of a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Cases 36.623, 36.820 and 37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) by which the Commission found the practices applied by them intended to restrict exports of automobiles to be anti-competitive. The contested decision covers, in particular, the individual measures adopted by the applicants with regard to dealers: bonus system for dealers, policy restricting promotional campaigns, limited supplying of dealers, direct instructions. The applicants claim, in addition, alternatively, the reduction of the fine imposed by the Commission.

In support of their claims, the applicants submit that in its decision the Commission infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in that it found that the measures adopted by the applicants could be regarded as an ‘agreement’ within the meaning of that article.

In the alternative, they rely on pleas in law alleging errors of fact, erroneous assessment of the facts and error of law in that the Commission held that the system of payment of dealers had an anti-competitive object within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the applicants call in question the determination of the length of the infringement made by the Commission in the contested decision in that the Commission made an error of fact and an erroneous assessment of the facts which led it, according to the applicants, to contradictions in the grounds of its decision.

The following plea in law covers the alleged insufficiency of the grounds of the contested decision so far as concerns the analysis of the effects of the measures alleged by the Commission. In addition, as part of that plea, the applicants accuse the Commission of having made errors of fact and an erroneous assessment of the facts and of having contradicted in the grounds of its decision.

In support of their alternative claim for the reduction of the fine imposed by the Commission, the applicants rely on a plea in law alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the Guidelines on the setting of fines (1) in the application of those provisions by the Commission.

1

---

(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and of Article 65(5) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 9 of 14 January 1998, p. 3).

1

---