# C_2011311EN.01002902.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/29

---

Appeal brought on 1 September 2011 by Solvay Solexis SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis v Commission

(Case C-449/11 P)

2011/C 311/48

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G.L. Zampa and G. Barone, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as they find that Ausimont participated in the infringement before May-September 1997 and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as they find that Ausimont participated in the infringement before May-September 1997 and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision;

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as, with reference to the period May — September 1997, they fail to recognise the lesser gravity of Ausimont’s conduct, on account of the fact that it did not participate in the agreement on the limitation of capacity and in so far as they place Ausimont in an incorrect category for the purpose of determining the basic amount of the fine and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision; or |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as, with reference to the period May — September 1997, they fail to recognise the lesser gravity of Ausimont’s conduct, on account of the fact that it did not participate in the agreement on the limitation of capacity and in so far as they place Ausimont in an incorrect category for the purpose of determining the basic amount of the fine and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision; or

| — | In the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as referred to in the two preceding paragraphs and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as referred to in the two preceding paragraphs and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) contradictory and insufficient statement of reasons and, in that connection, manifest distortion of the evidence, in that it has not been established that Ausimont’s conduct from May 1995 to May-September 1997 can be classified as forming part of an ‘agreement’ or ‘concerted practice’; nor are reasons given for the rejection of the objective evidence produced by the appellant to demonstrate that Ausimont’s conduct during that period was highly competitive and independent. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) contradictory and insufficient statement of reasons and, in that connection, manifest distortion of the evidence, in that it has not been established that Ausimont’s conduct from May 1995 to May-September 1997 can be classified as forming part of an ‘agreement’ or ‘concerted practice’; nor are reasons given for the rejection of the objective evidence produced by the appellant to demonstrate that Ausimont’s conduct during that period was highly competitive and independent.

1

| 2. | Breach of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legal certainty, including in the light of the failure to have regard to the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, (2) failure to state reasons and manifest distortion of the evidence in relation to the assessment of the gravity of Ausimont’s conduct and the determination of the sanction to be applied to it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Breach of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legal certainty, including in the light of the failure to have regard to the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, (2) failure to state reasons and manifest distortion of the evidence in relation to the assessment of the gravity of Ausimont’s conduct and the determination of the sanction to be applied to it.

2

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.

2

---