EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/26

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Viega v Commission

(Case T-375/06)

(2007/C 42/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (Attendorn, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and F.W. Bulst, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare Article 1(1) of the decision void, in so far as it finds an infringement by the applicant of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement;

— declare Article 2 of the decision void, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 54.29 million on the applicant;

— in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings. In the contested the decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a series of agreements in the form of price-fixing, establishing price lists and rebates, establishing mechanisms for the implementation of price increases, dividing up markets and customers and exchanging other economic information on the market for copper fittings and copper alloy fittings, from 12 December 1991 until 22 March 2001.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in support of its claim.

It is submitted, first, that the contested decision infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1), on the ground that the defendant infringed fundamental principles in the assessment of fines by incorrectly determining the applicable turnover. The defendant, in assessing the severity of the alleged infringement by the applicant, should have taken into account the turnover of press fittings when determining the turnover, even though the applicant did not at any time participate in anti-competitive practices in respect of press fittings.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC by incorrectly establishing the participation, and the duration of that participation, in the conduct of which it is accused. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to produce substantive evidence in relation to the applicant and erred in finding that infringements were committed.

In addition, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC, on the ground that the geographic scope of the infringements in Article 1 of the contested decision in relation to the applicant was incorrectly established.

Finally, the applicant alleges that Article 2 of the contested decision infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation No. 1/2003, on the ground that the Commission infringed fundamental principles in the assessment of fines. The applicant submits, in this connection, that the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2) were incorrectly applied in that the Commission classed the infringement as particularly serious, incorrectly established the duration of the infringement, incorrectly increased the basic amount of the fine on account of the duration of the infringement and failed to assess the mitigating circumstances.

(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 2002 L 1, p. 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).