# C_2008285EN.01004401.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/44

---

Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-343/08)

(2008/C 285/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and H. Kanellopolous, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 in so far as it concerns Arkema; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

| — | In the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing sales volumes, by fixing prices, by exchanging commercially sensitive information on prices and sales volumes and by monitoring the execution of those anticompetitive arrangements on the market for sodium chlorate in the European Economic Area.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

| — | an infringement of the rules concerning the responsibility of a parent company for offences committed by a subsidiary, inasmuch as the Commission committed errors of fact by asserting that Elf Aquitaine had a decisive influence on the applicant's commercial policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the rules concerning the responsibility of a parent company for offences committed by a subsidiary, inasmuch as the Commission committed errors of fact by asserting that Elf Aquitaine had a decisive influence on the applicant's commercial policy;

| — | an infringement of the applicant's rights of defence and of the principles of proportionality, non bis in idem, equality of treatment and of sound administration, since the basic amount of the fine payable by the applicant was increased by 90 % on the ground of recidivism; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the applicant's rights of defence and of the principles of proportionality, non bis in idem, equality of treatment and of sound administration, since the basic amount of the fine payable by the applicant was increased by 90 % on the ground of recidivism;

non bis in idem

| — | an underestimate of the value of the information provided by the applicant pursuant to the Leniency Notice of 2002 (1), inasmuch as the applicant should have received a reduction of the fine of between 30 and 50 %; and |
| --- | --- |

—

an underestimate of the value of the information provided by the applicant pursuant to the Leniency Notice of 2002 (1), inasmuch as the applicant should have received a reduction of the fine of between 30 and 50 %; and

1

| — | errors of law and of fact and an infringement of the principles of sound administration, proportionality and equality of treatment, since the Commission did not grant the applicant a reduction of the fine on the basis of its cooperation in the administrative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

errors of law and of fact and an infringement of the principles of sound administration, proportionality and equality of treatment, since the Commission did not grant the applicant a reduction of the fine on the basis of its cooperation in the administrative procedure.

---

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

1

---