----

Action brought on 27 December 2005 — Belgian Sewing Thread v Commission

(Case T-452/05)

(2006/C 60/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread N.V. (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

First of all, the applicant contests the Commission's decision of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case 38.337 — PO/Thread) insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established there to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and seeks the annulment or at least a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on it.

The applicant states that the infringement committed by it was wrongly classified as very serious. The Commission thereby infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), and also the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the applicant had not played any role whatsoever in the conception and organisation of the infringement, did not participate in the meetings in question with a view to making agreements restrictive of competition, and the fact that the applicant never implemented the agreements.

The applicant also challenges its placement in the second category for determination of the basic amount, and the size of the basic amount imposed. According to the applicant, the Commission overrated the possibility of the applicant having a real impact on competition, both in an absolute sense in comparison with the impact of the other undertakings involved but also in the light of the applicant's precarious financial situation and the limited size of the market. It also submits in that connection that the Commission infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003, the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons.

According to the applicant, the Commission also wrongly assessed attenuating circumstances in relation to the applicant and infringed the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons. The Commission ought to have taken into account as attenuating circumstances the fact that the applicant did not implement the agreements made and that it had played a very limited and passive role.

According to the applicant, a much too small a reduction in the fine imposed was granted to it on account of its cooperation with the investigation, in breach of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of equality and proportionality and the Leniency Notice.

Finally, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered by it as result of the Commission's infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the obligation of secrecy, by publishing the applicant's internal price lists.

----

(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)

----