Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:255
Date: 2008-07-08
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Pleas in law;Determining the amount of the fine;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Restriction of competition;Decision of the Commission;Definition of undertaking;Agreements of undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices;General;Right to a judicial remedy;Hearing of persons concerned and of third parties / Access to the file
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible;Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: France

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-54/03) (Language of the case: French) An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA, established in Paris, represented by Henry Lesguillons, Nathalie Jalbert-Doury, Jean-Cyril Bermond, Antoine Winckler, François Brunet and Igor Simic, lawyers. The applicant claims that the Court should: (annul the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities on 27 November 2002 in Case COMP/E-1/37.152 in so far as it concerns Lafarge SA and Lafarge Gypsum International SA; (in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on it by that decision; (order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The decision which is the subject of the present application concerns an agreement or arrangement between BPB, Gebruder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke AG, Gyproc Benelux and the applicant on the plasterboard market. In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and committed manifest errors of assessment inasmuch as the decision finds that Lafarge SA committed a single complex continuous infringement, which the applicant denies. The applicant also takes the view that: (the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 of the ECHR; (the defendant infringed essential procedural requirements and rights of the defence. In that respect, the applicant claims that the defendant used statements from the parties made during the procedure and that the proceedings were vitiated by constant infringements of the principle of equality of arms; (the defendant infringed the principle of impartiality. In support of its claims the applicant alleges, in the alternative, that the defendant infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, Article 253 EC and the principles of proportionality and of equal treatment by: (imposing on the applicant a fine in excess of 10% of its worldwide turnover; (imposing on the applicant an global fine in respect of allegedly discrete infringements; (increasing the "starting amount" as a deterrent and on the ground of aggravating circumstances; (applying an excessive multiplication factor; (not reducing the fine on the ground of attenuating circumstances or by virtue of the "Amnesty Notice". 1 ____________ 1 - (Published in OJ 1996 C 207 p. 4