# C_2009205EN.01002201.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/22

---

Appeal brought on 15 June 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission.

(Case C-216/09)

2009/C 205/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and X. Lewis, agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International, formerly Arcelor International SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission, to the extent that it annuls the fines imposed by Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 (1) on ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (formerly ProfilARBED) and on ArcelorMittal International SA (formerly TradeARBED); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission, to the extent that it annuls the fines imposed by Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 (1) on ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (formerly ProfilARBED) and on ArcelorMittal International SA (formerly TradeARBED);

ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others

Commission

1

| — | Dismiss the actions of ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the actions of ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA;

| — | Order the other parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on a single ground in support of its appeal, namely that the Court of First Instance failed to observe the rules relating to limitation periods in proceedings.

According to the Commission, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is based on a literal and excessively restrictive interpretation of Decision 715/78/ECSC (2) and, in particular, its Articles 2(3) and (3), since the Court makes a distinction between the interruption of the limitation period and its suspension. As distinct from Article 2(2), which explicitly states that all parties are affected by the interruption of the limitation period, Article 3 is silent on the effects of suspension. The judgment of the Court of First Instance is vitiated by an error of law in that it concludes that the suspension of the limitation period brought about by the commencement by one party of legal proceedings before the Community judicature applies only as regards the applicant company and holds therefore that the limitation period had expired as regards the other parties.

2

The Commission claims that, contrary to the ruling of the Court of First Instance, the silence of the legislation does not permit the inference that the effect of suspension is personal and Article 3 of Decision 715/78/ECSC should be interpreted in the light of the objectives of the legislation at issue, relating to the Commission having the opportunity to bring proceedings against and penalise effectively contraventions of competition law.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams)

1

(2)  Commission Decision No 715/78/ECSC of 6 April 1978 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (OJ 1978 L 94, p. 22).

2

---