# C_2006108EN.01002402.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/24

---

Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Plásticos Españoles (Aspla) v Commission

(Case T-76/06)

(2006/C 108/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Plásticos Españoles S.A. (Aspla) (Torrelavega, Spain) (represented by: E. Garayar and A. García Castillo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare the present action for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action for annulment admissible;

| — | annul Decision C(2005) 4634 final, of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags, alternatively substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Plásticos Españoles S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2005) 4634 final, of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags, alternatively substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Plásticos Españoles S.A.;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks annulment of Decision C(2005) 4634 final, of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by having participated, between 1991 and 2002, in agreements and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag sector in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Spain and France. For those infringements, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant jointly and severally with the undertaking Armando Álvarez S.A..

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following pleas:

| — | error in the assessment of the facts by the Commission in relation to the scale of the applicant's conduct, to the scope of the product markets and geographic markets concerned and the product quotas which serve as a basis for calculating the fines; |
| --- | --- |

—

error in the assessment of the facts by the Commission in relation to the scale of the applicant's conduct, to the scope of the product markets and geographic markets concerned and the product quotas which serve as a basis for calculating the fines;

| — | violation of Article 81(1) EC and the principle of legal certainty, on account of incorrect classification of the infringement as ‘single and continuous’ and incorrect determination of the responsibility of the undertakings sanctioned; |
| --- | --- |

—

violation of Article 81(1) EC and the principle of legal certainty, on account of incorrect classification of the infringement as ‘single and continuous’ and incorrect determination of the responsibility of the undertakings sanctioned;

| — | in the alternative, violation of Article 81(1) EC and the principle of legal certainty and equal treatment on account of incorrect classification of the infringement as ‘single and continuous’ with respect to the applicant, incorrect assessment of the applicant's individual liability and discrimination as between itself and the undertaking Stempher B.V. which, according to the Commission, had also participated in the infringement in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, violation of Article 81(1) EC and the principle of legal certainty and equal treatment on account of incorrect classification of the infringement as ‘single and continuous’ with respect to the applicant, incorrect assessment of the applicant's individual liability and discrimination as between itself and the undertaking Stempher B.V. which, according to the Commission, had also participated in the infringement in question;

| — | infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (1) and the Guidelines on the method of setting of fines on account of manifest error in the calculation of the fine imposed on the applicant and a manifest infringement of the principle of equal treatment and proportionality in determining the amounts. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (1) and the Guidelines on the method of setting of fines on account of manifest error in the calculation of the fine imposed on the applicant and a manifest infringement of the principle of equal treatment and proportionality in determining the amounts.

1

---

(1)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 87)

1

---