# C_2008197EN.01002801.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/28

---

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Team Relocations NV v Commission

(Case T-204/08)

(2008/C 197/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997 — September 2003 by directly and indirectly fixing prices for International Removal Services in Belgium, sharing part of the market and manipulating the procedure of submission of tenders; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997 — September 2003 by directly and indirectly fixing prices for International Removal Services in Belgium, sharing part of the market and manipulating the procedure of submission of tenders;

| — | annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services, in so far as it imposes on the applicant a fine of EUR 3,49 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services, in so far as it imposes on the applicant a fine of EUR 3,49 million;

| — | in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed by the aforementioned decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed by the aforementioned decision;

| — | in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2008)926 final of 11 March 2008 (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.

The applicant puts forward eight pleas in law in support of its claims:

First, the applicant claims that the Commission violated Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA as well as the duty to state reasons by asserting in Article 1 of its decision that the applicant participated from January 1997 to September 2003 in a single, continuous infringement of Article 81 EC.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment as well as the 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) by taking into account, for purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the applicant's aggregate sales on the Belgian market for international removals, including turnover derived from moves for private individuals.

1

Third, the applicant contends that the percentage of 17 % of the value of sales applied by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the applicant's fine is excessively high. In doing so, the Commission allegedly violates the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the duty to state reasons.

Fourth, the applicant submits that there is no basis for multiplying the applicant's value of sales by the number of years during which the practices in which it engaged occurred. Further, it claims that the automatic multiplication of the amount determined on the basis of the value of sales by the number of years of an undertaking's participation in the infringement confers on the alleged duration of the infringement an importance disproportionate in relation to other factors and in particular to the gravity of the infringement.

Fifth, the applicant advances that there is no basis for imposing on the applicant an additional amount of EUR 436 850,53, equal to 17 % of the value of its sales.

Sixth, the applicant claims that the Commission should have taken into consideration several mitigating circumstances that warrant a substantial reduction of the applicant's fine.

Seventh, the applicant argues that there was no basis for imposing a fine that exceeds 10 % of its turnover. In doing so, the Commission violated Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (2) and the principle of proportionality.

2

Eighth and in the alternative, the applicant submits that its fine should be substantially reduced in order to take into account its inability to pay.

---

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

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

2

---