# C_2007042EN.01002801.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/28

---

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Comap v Commission

(Case T-377/06)

(2007/C 42/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comap SA (Lyons, France) (represented by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms 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 of the decision was reached, in so far as that decision censures Comap for periods other than that between December 1997 and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not challenge the facts set out by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

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 of the decision was reached, in so far as that decision censures Comap for periods other than that between December 1997 and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not challenge the facts set out by the Commission;

| — | amend Articles 1 and 2 and the grounds on which they were reached, by reducing the amount of the fine of EUR 18.56 million imposed on Comap; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend Articles 1 and 2 and the grounds on which they were reached, by reducing the amount of the fine of EUR 18.56 million imposed on Comap;

| — | 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 censures Comap for periods other than that between December 1997 and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not challenge the facts set out by the Commission. In the alternative, it seeks a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.

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

First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and committed errors of law, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment in finding that the alleged cartel continued after on-the-spot investigations by the Commission in March 2001, until April 2004.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in that it did not acknowledge that, since no evidence of anti-competitive practices could be produced, the alleged infringement was interrupted for a period of 27 months, between September 1992 and December 1994, with the result, according to the applicant, that facts occurring prior to December 1994 were subject to limitation when the Commission's investigation opened in January 2001.

1

In the alternative, the applicant puts forward a plea based on infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, together with the Guidlines on the method of setting fines (2) and the Leniency Notice (3), in that the Commission failed to comply with the rules on the method of setting fines. It argues that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment in that the starting amount for the purposes of calculating the fine imposed on Comap was, according to it, unduly high in comparison with the starting amounts chosen in respect of the other undertakings censured by the contested decision, notwithstanding that their competitive position was comparable to the position held on the market by the applicant.

2

3

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

2

(3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

3

---