# C_2005082EN.01004101.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/41

---

Action brought on 20 January 2005 by Deltafina SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-29/05)

(2005/C 82/73)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 January 2005 by Deltafina SpA, established in Orvieto (TR), represented by Roberto A. Jacchia, Antonella Terranova, Irene Picciano and Fabio Ferraro, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Commission Decision C (2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 (‘the contested decision’); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Commission Decision C (2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 (‘the contested decision’);

| 2. | in the alternative, annul in part and vary the contested decision, and accordingly reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Deltafina; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the alternative, annul in part and vary the contested decision, and accordingly reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Deltafina;

| 3. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision is the same as that in Case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission
   (1). The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case.

Standard Commercial and Others

Commission

1

The applicant claims in particular that the defendant:

| — | found that it had participated, even as the lead undertaking, in a cartel put into effect on a relevant market in which it was not present; |
| --- | --- |

—

found that it had participated, even as the lead undertaking, in a cartel put into effect on a relevant market in which it was not present;

| — | failed to identify that relevant market; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to identify that relevant market;

| — | addressed to it a statement of objections without indicating consistent grounds in support; |
| --- | --- |

—

addressed to it a statement of objections without indicating consistent grounds in support;

| — | failed to have regard to the duty to state sufficient reasons for measures, as regards proving that trade was, at least indirectly or potentially, adversely affected; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to have regard to the duty to state sufficient reasons for measures, as regards proving that trade was, at least indirectly or potentially, adversely affected;

| — | wrongly assessed the duration and seriousness of the infringement, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances; |
| --- | --- |

—

wrongly assessed the duration and seriousness of the infringement, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances;

| — | wrongly assessed the applicant's role, and should therefore reduce the fine imposed on it. |
| --- | --- |

—

wrongly assessed the applicant's role, and should therefore reduce the fine imposed on it.

The applicant also pleads failure to take account of the maximum limits for fines and of the objective elements relating to the economic and social context as relevant factors in setting the fine.

Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-retroactivity of penalties and protection of legitimate expectations, as well as misuse of powers, since the Commission departed from its past practice of imposing purely nominal penalties on persons who encourage or abet or are external competitors of cartels, contrary to its declared intention to depart from the same only for the future.

---

(1)  Not yet published in the ECR.

1

---