ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/43

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — SNIA v Commission

(Case T-194/06)

(2006/C 212/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): SNIA S.p.A. (represented by: Alberto Santa Maria and Claudi Biscaretti di Rufia, lawyers,)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in so far as it imposes on SNIA S.p.A., jointly and severally with Caffaro S.r.l., a fine of EUR 1 078 000.

— The Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as in Case T-185/06 L'air Liquide v Commission.

In that decision, the Commission maintains that, at the time of the facts, Industrie Chimiche Caffaro S.p.A. (ICC) was managerially dependent not only on Caffaro S.p.A., a company quoted on the Italian stock exchange and controlling ICC as to 100 %, but also on the applicant, a majority shareholder of Caffaro S.p.A. of between 53 % and 59 %. Essentially on the basis of that indirect link, the applicant is considered jointly and severally liable for the infringement of which the Commission accuses Caffaro S.r.l.

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:

— that the Commission has not established a relationship of dependency between SNIA and ICC during the period in question. Nor has it demonstrated the existence, during the same period, of such a relationship between Caffaro S.p.A. and ICC.

— that, as regards the relevance of the merger between Caffaro S.p.A. and SNIA for the purposes of identifying a decisive influence of SNIA, the Commission ignored the fact that the merger by incorporation of Caffaro S.p.A. into SNIA S.p.A. (like the change of the company name of ICC to Caffaro S.p.A., now Caffaro S.r.l.) occurred in 2000, that is to say a year after the exit from the market in bleaching agents, and that, as already stated, the Commission has not in any way demonstrated decisive influence by Caffaro S.p.A. over ICC.
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)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— 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.;

— 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;

— 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;

— 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) 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)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/23

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission

(Case T-355/06)

(2007/C 20/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it finds that BAM breached Article 81 EC, a fine is imposed on BAM in that regard, BAM is enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequences, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant submits that the Commission acted contrary to Article 81 EC and to Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by concluding that the claimant had breached Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the Commission wrongly attributed to it, as the parent company, the breach allegedly committed by a subsidiary.

In the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commission incorrectly determined the amount of the fine imposed on it. The Commission imposed a fine based on a period of two years and five months during which the claimant allegedly held 100 % of the shares in BAM NBM, whereas that period in fact amounted only to one year and five months.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/32

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-394/06)

(2007/C 42/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision C (2006) 4324 of 3 October 2006, notified on the same date, in so far as it excludes from Community financing, and charges to the budget of the Italian Republic the financial consequences to be applied in the context of the clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, cases of irregularity by a number of operators.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action, the Italian Republic contests the exclusion from Community financing, and the consequent charging to the budget of the Italian State, the financial consequences relating to 157 cases of irregularities in the total amount of EUR 310 849 495,98, in relation to which the applicant failed to take steps with all due diligence by instigating the recovery procedure.

In support of its claims, the applicant disputes that there is any negligence that can be attributed to it and claims:

— Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (1).

— Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3).

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1999. p. 11.

(2) OJ English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/25

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission

(Case T-359/06)

(2007/C 20/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to the claimant;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes the same pleas in law and arguments as those set out by the claimant in Case T-358/06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/26

Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’v Council

(Case T-84/07)

(2007/C 117/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Open Joint Stock Company Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’(Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested regulation; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Community institutions established the normal value for the applicant wrongly and made a wrong comparison with the export price and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping. The Community institutions thereby committed a series of manifest errors of assessment and violated fundamental principles of Community law.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Community institutions violated Article 11(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to carry out an interim review in conjunction with the expiry review under Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and by adopting the contested regulation extending the duties at their original level, whilst having had the duty and the possibility to initiate an interim review either ex-officio or pursuant to sufficient evidence provided by the applicant.

(1) OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/45

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission

(Case T-38/07)

(2007/C 82/96)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, The Netherlands), Shell Nederland BV (The Hague, The Netherlands) and Shell Nederland Chemie BV (Rotterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: T. Snoep and J. Brockhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

SPNV requests the Court:

— to annul the decision, in full, insofar as it is addressed to SPNV;

— in the alternative: — to annul Article 2(d) of the decision, or — to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

— to order the Commission to pay the costs.

SNBV requests the Court:

— to annul the decision, in full, insofar as it is addressed to SNBV;

— in the alternative: — to annul Article 2(d) of the decision, or — to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

— to order the Commission to pay the costs.

SNC requests the Court:

— to annul Article 2(d) of the decision or to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

— to order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission violated Article 81 EC and Articles 7 and 23(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1) by:

a) imputing the infringement also to Shell Petroleum NV and Shell Nederland BV even though the Commission acknowledges that only Shell Nederland Chemie BV participated directly in the infringement;

b) increasing the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the applicants by 50 % for recidivism in breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty;

c) applying a multiplier for deterrence in breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality; and

d) setting the starting amount of the fine to be imposed on the applicants in breach of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2) and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

In the alternative, the applicants invoke a violation of the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC.

(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).

(2) Commission Notice of 14 January 1998 entitled ‘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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/31

Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen v Commission

(Case T-147/07)

(2007/C 155/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH (Neuhausen auf den Fildern, Germany) and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Itzen and K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicants;

— in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants in the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators. In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicants and other undertakings on the ground of their participation in a cartel relating to the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Germany. In the view of the Commission, the undertakings concerned acted in breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of their action, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

— Lack of competence on the part of the Commission in the absence of any significance at inter-State level of the local infringement of which the applicants are accused;

— Absence of the conditions required to establish that the applicants bear joint and several liability with the companies hierarchically above them, inasmuch as they are legally and economically independent;

— Disproportionate nature of the basic amounts taken into consideration in the calculation of the fine in comparison with the de facto market volume concerned;

— Illegality of the deterrent multiplication factor as the applicants' turnover was the only relevant factor in the calculation of the fine and that turnover did not justify application of that multiplication factor;

— Lack of justification for the repeat offender surcharge in the context of the fine calculation by reason of errors of law in the inclusion of previous fines and errors of appraisal;

— Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inasmuch as, with regard to the upper fine limit of 10 % of the undertaking's turnover, the Commission based itself on the turnover of the concern and not on that of the applicants;

— Legally defective application of the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines (2) inasmuch as insufficient account was taken of the added value provided by the cooperation of the applicants.

(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).

(2) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/36

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Patrick Holding v OHIM — Cassera (Patrick Exclusive)

(Case T-370/07)

(2007/C 283/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cassera SpA. (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

— The applicant requests that the decision taken by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 26 July 2007 in case R1447/2005-2 be annulled;

— that the defendant is ordered to register the contested trademark;

— that the defendant pays the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Patrick Holding ApS

Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark ‘PATRICK EXCLUSIVE’ for goods in class 25 — application No 2 946 424

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cassera SpA

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘G. Patrick’ for goods in class and 25 and the national and international word mark ‘G. Patrick’ for goods in classes 24 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/24

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission

(Case T-411/07)

(2008/C 8/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, T. Snels, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4600 of 11 October 2007 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request to initiate proceedings under Article 8(4) and to adopt interim measures under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’), following Commission Decision C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 (‘the Prohibition Decision’) declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair — Aer Lingus).

The applicant submits that the Commission has both misconstrued and misapplied Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation by stating that it did not have the power to require Ryanair, following the Prohibition Decision, to divest its minority stake in Aer Lingus, or to take other measures to restore the status quo ante, or to take interim measures in the meantime.

The applicant claims in particular that, since the Commission explicitly treated this minority stake and Ryanair's associated public offer for Aer Lingus as forming integral parts of the same single concentration, it follows that the prohibited concentration has been partially implemented. Moreover, the applicant contends that Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation empower the Commission in these circumstances to act to address the adverse effects on competition arising from this minority shareholding linking two companies which have been held to be each other's closest competitors on air transport routes to and from Ireland.

The applicant further claims that the Commission has acted in breach of Article 21(3) of the EC Merger Regulation by failing to assert its exclusive jurisdiction and instead leaving open the possibility on intervention by Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/27

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)

(Case T-418/07)

(2008/C 8/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Guntramsdorf, Austria) (represented by: G. Prantl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dagmar Causley (Pleidesheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2007 (Case 1454/2005-4) and alter it so as to allow the applicant's appeal lodged with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and as a consequence to reject the objection in its entirety;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any interveners jointly to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word and figurative mark ‘LiBRO’ for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 616 753).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark ‘LIBERO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 401 141).

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion of the opposing trade marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).