# C_2012227EN.01003301.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/33 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission

(Case T-259/12)

2012/C 227/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alban Giacomo SpA (Romano d’Ezzelino, Italy) (represented by: S. Nanni Costa, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, if necessary by having recourse to the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 261 TFEU; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-248/12 Carl Fuhr GmbH & C. KG v Commission.

The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.

| 1. | First plea, alleging that the determination of the duration of the infringement ascribed to Alban Giacomo SpA was unlawful.
—
By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it particpated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007. —
The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006. | — | By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it particpated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007. | — | The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it particpated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007. | | | | |
| — | The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on Alban Giacomo SpA is unlawful, in so far as it is contrary to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence and the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality.
—
By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. —
The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant. | — | By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. | — | The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. | | | | |
| — | The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant. | | | | |

---