# C_2007042EN.01002701.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/27

---

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Legris Industries v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-376/06)

(2007/C 42/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Legris Industries (Rennes, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints, together with the grounds on which the operative part was reached, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices at issue of Comap being imputed to Legris Industries in its capacity as a holding company; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints, together with the grounds on which the operative part was reached, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices at issue of Comap being imputed to Legris Industries in its capacity as a holding company;

| — | allow the holding company Legris Industries to adopt the written pleadings, forms of order sought and claims submitted by Comap against the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the holding company Legris Industries to adopt the written pleadings, forms of order sought and claims submitted by Comap against the decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints), concerning a series of agreements and concerted practices on the market for copper joints and copper alloys having as their object price fixing, the drawing up of price lists and lists of rebates and discounts, the putting in place of coordination arrangements for price increases, the sharing of national markets and customers, together with the exchange of other business information, in so far as that decision imposes a fine of the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices at issue of its former subsidiary Comap being imputed to it.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes the following pleas in law.

First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC in imputing to it disputed infringements committed by its subsidiary Comap and, accordingly, in holding it jointly and severally liable for those infringements. It submits that the Commission infringed the principle of the legal and commercial autonomy of the subsidiary and the principle of personal responsibility in the field of competition law in considering that the holding by the applicant of the entire issued share capital of the subsidiary was sufficient to establish the exercise of a determinative influence over the latter. The applicant also claims that the Commission committed errors of law, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment in that it failed to adduce evidence to show that the holding company Legris Industries had effective control over the actings of Comap.

The applicant also claims that the Commission committed errors of law in that it failed to rebut the evidence put forward by the applicant to show Comap's autonomy, in particular as regards the determination and direction of its trading policy. The applicant claims to have demonstrated that it did not give instructions to Comap in relation to its conduct on the market, that its role was merely that of financial supervision which did not include the giving of directions to its subsidiaries in budgetary matters and that Comap had access to its own sources of finance. Consequently, it argues that mere evidence of the connection established by its holding in the capital of the subsidiary and the direct consequences resulting from such a connection, on which, according to the applicant, the Commission based its decision to impute the infringements committed by its subsidiary to the applicant, cannot be evidence of the exercise of effective control over the actings of that subsidiary.

---