# C_2017318EN.01001301.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/13

---

Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and others v Commission

(Case T-361/17)

(2017/C 318/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Matlock, United Kingdom), Berzelius Metall GmbH (Braubach, Germany) and Société Traitements Chimiques des Métaux (STCM) (Bazoches-les-Gallerandes, France) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC, I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final as amended on 6 April 2017 by Decision C(2017)2223 final of 6 April 2017, in Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant to take into account a representative value of purchases during the infringement period and the correct duration of the applicant’s participation in the infringement’s manifestations in France, and remove the 10 % increment based on the application of Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final as amended on 6 April 2017 by Decision C(2017)2223 final of 6 April 2017, in Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant to take into account a representative value of purchases during the infringement period and the correct duration of the applicant’s participation in the infringement’s manifestations in France, and remove the 10 % increment based on the application of Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1); and

1

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the applicant’s rights of defence by identifying the applicant’s value of purchases to be used as a basis for the fine calculation for the first time in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the applicant’s rights of defence by identifying the applicant’s value of purchases to be used as a basis for the fine calculation for the first time in the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality by using the applicant’s value of purchases in 2011 as reference in the calculation of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality by using the applicant’s value of purchases in 2011 as reference in the calculation of the fine.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of personal responsibility, equal treatment and proportionality and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the applicant’s more limited involvement in the cartel’s manifestations in France. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of personal responsibility, equal treatment and proportionality and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the applicant’s more limited involvement in the cartel’s manifestations in France.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the duty to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to adequately justify the application of Point 37 of the Guidelines and the exact fine increase applied. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the duty to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to adequately justify the application of Point 37 of the Guidelines and the exact fine increase applied.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by treating purchase cartels different from sales cartels. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by treating purchase cartels different from sales cartels.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by applying a fine increase pursuant to Point 37 of the Guidelines without referencing it in the Statement of Objections and failing to issue a supplementary Statement of Objections and organise a new hearing. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by applying a fine increase pursuant to Point 37 of the Guidelines without referencing it in the Statement of Objections and failing to issue a supplementary Statement of Objections and organise a new hearing.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by not expressing its intention to apply Point 37 of the Guidelines at an earlier stage of the administrative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by not expressing its intention to apply Point 37 of the Guidelines at an earlier stage of the administrative procedure.

---

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

1

---