# C_2012058EN.01001302.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/13

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — FSL and Others v Commission

(Case T-655/11)

2012/C 58/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: FSL Holdings (Antwerp, Belgium), Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and C. Verdonck, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 12 October 2011 rendered in Case COMP/39.482 — Exotic Fruits — Bananas; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 12 October 2011 rendered in Case COMP/39.482 — Exotic Fruits — Bananas;

| — | In subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the contested decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 8 919 000 and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments raised by the applicants in the application before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

In subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the contested decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 8 919 000 and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments raised by the applicants in the application before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and the rights of defence, as:






  — | Documents obtained solely for the purpose of a national tax investigation were used; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and the rights of defence, as:

—

Documents obtained solely for the purpose of a national tax investigation were used;

| — | Documents from other files were used; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Documents from other files were used; and

| — | The immunity applicant has been illegally steered. |
| --- | --- |

—

The immunity applicant has been illegally steered.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the defendant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of evidence, as well as the inability of the evidence to support the finding of an infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of evidence, as well as the inability of the evidence to support the finding of an infringement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and of the 2006 fining guidelines (2) due to a manifest incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as of the mitigating circumstances, and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the calculation of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and of the 2006 fining guidelines (2) due to a manifest incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as of the mitigating circumstances, and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the calculation of the fine.

1

2

---

(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)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)

2

---