# C_2005082EN.01003801.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/38

---

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-24/05)

(2005/C 82/69)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA), Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA) and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation established in Vaduz (Liechtenstein), represented by M. Odriozola, M.Marañón and A. Emch, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to the applicants;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81(1) EC by concluding agreements and/or concerted practices, during the period 1996-2001, designed to fix each year the (maximum) average delivery price of each variety of raw tobacco (all qualities) and to share out the quantities of each variety of raw tobacco to be bought. The Commission further found that for the last three years (1999 - 2001) they had also agreed among themselves price brackets per quality grade of each variety of raw tobacco and additional conditions.

In support of their application the applicants claim first of all that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article 23 (2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in holding the applicants liable for the infringement committed by their subsidiary. According to the applicants the Commission proved neither that the applicants were in a position to exercise decisive influence over their subsidiary during the whole duration of the infringement nor that they actually exercised any influence over the subsidiary's policy. In the alternative, the applicants also claim that the Commission stated insufficient reasons for holding them liable for their subsidiary's infringement.

1

Further, the applicants claim that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by failing to apply to the applicants the criteria it had applied in excluding liability of other parent companies for subsidiaries participating in the infringement in question. This includes failing to take into account that one of the applicants' interest in its subsidiary was of purely financial nature even though the Commission had excluded liability of another parent undertaking on exactly these grounds.

---

(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 L 1, 4/1/2003 p. 1.

1

---