# C_2008051EN.01004502.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/45

---

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Prym and Others v Commission

(Case T-454/07)

(2008/C 51/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: William Prym GmbH & Co KG (Stolberg, Germany), Prym Inovan GmbH & Co KG (Stolberg, Germany), EP Group S.A. (Comines-Warneton, Belgium) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and C. Herrmann, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant of 19 September 2007, in so far as it is addressed to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant of 19 September 2007, in so far as it is addressed to the applicants;

| — | In the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the decision to a reasonable amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the decision to a reasonable amount;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery — Fasteners. Pursuant to that decision, companies in the Prym group were fined for infringement of Article 81 EC in respect of three separate infringements in the hard haberdashery sector, whereas the Commission found a total of four infringements.

The applicants base their action on eleven pleas in law.

In connection with the allegation of multilateral cooperation in relation to ‘other fasteners’ and attaching machines, it is submitted as follows:

| — | Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), as one set of actions was split up into two separate infringements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), as one set of actions was split up into two separate infringements;

1

| — | Erroneous application of the Leniency Notice of 2002 (2), as the reduction of the fine by 30 % was too low. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous application of the Leniency Notice of 2002 (2), as the reduction of the fine by 30 % was too low.

2

In connection with the allegation of trilateral cooperation in the sector of zip fasteners, it is submitted as follows:

| — | Unlawful taking into account of the conduct of a joint venture of the first and second applicants and erroneous calculation of the fine imposed on the third applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Unlawful taking into account of the conduct of a joint venture of the first and second applicants and erroneous calculation of the fine imposed on the third applicant;

| — | Infringement of Section C or D of the Leniency Notice of 1996 (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Section C or D of the Leniency Notice of 1996 (3).

3

With regard to the allegation of bilateral cooperation with an undertaking of the Coats group, it is submitted as follows:

| — | Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, since that cooperation and one of the infringements penalised by Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) were split up into two separate infringements, although they should be treated as a single infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, since that cooperation and one of the infringements penalised by Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) were split up into two separate infringements, although they should be treated as a single infringement;

| — | Infringement of the ne bis in idem principle by imposing a second fine in respect of the same act; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the ne bis in idem principle by imposing a second fine in respect of the same act;

ne bis in idem

| — | Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the splitting up of a single infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the splitting up of a single infringement;

| — | Infringement of the principle of cooperation and of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of cooperation and of equal treatment.

With regard to the determination of the fine, the following is submitted:

| — | Infringement of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (4) and of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of equal treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (4) and of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of equal treatment;

4

| — | Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the setting of the starting amount and for the definition of the objectively relevant markets; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the setting of the starting amount and for the definition of the objectively relevant markets;

| — | In the alternative, infringement of the principle of proportionality by the excessive overall burden imposed on the applicants and failure to provide adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, infringement of the principle of proportionality by the excessive overall burden imposed on the applicants and failure to provide adequate reasons.

---

(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)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

2

(3)  Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4).

3

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

4

---