Order — ECLI:EU:T:2010:502
Date: 2010-12-07
Language of the case: French
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded;Appeal against penalty
Origin: Belgium;France;Italy

Action brought on 13 September 2010 - ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission (Case T-385/10) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: ArcelorMittal Wire France (Bourg-en-Bresse, France), ArcelorMittal Fontaine (Fontaine-L'Evêque, Belgium), ArcelorMittal Verderio Srl (Verderio Inferiore, Italy) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and M. Pittie, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought Principally, annul the Commission decision in Case COMP/38.344 - Pre-stressing steel in so far as (i) in Article 1 thereof, it finds that AMWF, AM Fontaine and AM Verderio took part in a single and continuous infringement and/or a concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector contrary to Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from 1 January 1984 to 19 September 2002, 20 December 1984 to 19 September 2002 and from 3 April 1995 to 19 September 2002 respectively; (ii) it, consequently, imposes on them, in Article 2 thereof, fines amounting to EUR 276.48 million as regards AMWF, of which EUR 268.8 million is imposed jointly and severally with AM Fontaine and EUR 72 million is imposed jointly and severally with AM Verderio; (iii) it orders them, in Article 3 thereof, to immediately bring the infringement to an end, if they have not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct of the kind described in (i) and any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect and (iv) in Article 4 thereof, it addresses the decision to them. In the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, vary the decision by reducing very substantially the amounts of the fines imposed on each of the applicants, as those amounts appear in Article 2, and In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant seeks, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement ('EEA') (Case COMP/38.344 - Pre-stressing steel) concerning a cartel in the European pre-stressing steel market relating to the fixing of prices, the sharing of the market and the exchange of sensitive commercial information. In support of their action, the applicants put forward several pleas in law alleging: - an infringement of the applicants' fundamental right to an impartial tribunal and an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union inasmuch as the Commission exercises the role of both prosecutor and judge; - an infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/20031 and of the principles of the personal nature of penalties, proportionality and equal treatment inasmuch as the Commission imposed fines on the applicants in an amount manifestly exceeding the legal ceiling of 10% of their total turnover in the preceding business year; - an insufficient amount of evidence showing the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA for the period between 1 January 1984 and November 1982 or, at very least, the lack of a statement of reasons; - the lack of a statement of reasons and an infringement of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines2 as well as an infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and sound administration inasmuch as there are gaps in the decision making it impossible to understand the method applied by the Commission to calculate the fines; - the lack of a statement of reasons and manifest errors of law and fact inasmuch as the fines imposed on AMWF and AM Fontaine were increased by 60% on the basis that they had previously committed offences; - an insufficient statement of reasons and an infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 as well as an infringement of the principles of equality and proportionality inasmuch as only the amount of the applicants' fines was increased by 20% for dissuasive effect, although other parties to the cartel were in the same situation. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1). 2 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003