ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 60/50

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Alliance One International v Commission

(Case T-25/06)

(2006/C 60/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance One International, Inc. (Danville, USA) [represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1.1(a) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final, of 20 October 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Italy) insofar as it relates to SCC, Dimon Inc. and Alliance One;

— accordingly reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the latest financial year;

— alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo as the multiplying factor is not applicable;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested Decision the Commission found that several companies, including the applicant and its subsidiaries, Transcatab and Dimon Italia, later renamed Mindo, infringed Article 81(1) EC by way of agreements and/or concerted practices in the Italian raw tobacco sector.

The applicant requests the partial annulment of this Decision arguing, firstly, that by holding it jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by its subsidiaries, the Commission breached the rules regulating responsibility of parent companies. The applicant contests in this context the arguments and the evidence cited by the Commission in support of its finding.

The applicant also considers that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by imposing fines which exceed 10 % of the total turnover of its subsidiaries.

Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission should not have applied a multiplying factor to its subsidiaries as this was not justified on the basis of the parties' turnovers and the Commission's decisional practice. It further argues that the multiplying factor applied to it is higher than that applied to another undertaking leading to an evident violation of proportionality and lack of reasoning. The applicant also submits that the reasoning for the application of a multiplying factor to Mindo is inconsistent as it applies different criteria to determine the same fine.

(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, 04/01/2003 p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/45

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC v Commission

(Case T-197/06)

(2006/C 212/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, USA) (represented by: C. Stanbrook, Q.C., and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006, in so far as it applies to FMC Corporation; and

— in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on FMC Corporation; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, by which the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a cartel, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements.

The applicant invokes two pleas in law in support of its application and contends in general that it is not liable for the infringements of its subsidiary Foret as it did not exercise a decisive influence over the subsidiary.

Firstly, the applicant claims that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision is flawed both in law and in fact as:

a) the Commission's conclusions were based on a misconstruction of the evidence, on wrongful discrimination in giving different weight to different sources of oral evidence, and generally on a manifest error of assessment;

b) the Commission used the wrong legal test of control for the purposes of determining the applicant's responsibility for the infringement of Foret;

c) the Commission used evidence which did not relate to the period of the alleged infringement; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/24

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission

(Case T-357/06)

(2007/C 20/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside, in relation to the claimant, the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006, notification of which Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin received on 25 November 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in relation to the claimant, or in any event reduce substantially the fine imposed on the claimant by Article 2 of the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the 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 alleges, in the first place, that there was an incorrect analysis of the facts, resulting in a defective appraisal of the conduct of the road construction companies in the light of Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the suppliers of bitumen were involved in a classic and extremely serious breach of the European competition rules. It states that the five leading customers for bitumen for road construction attempted to establish a counter-balance to this cartel with the primary objective of securing for themselves collective rebates that were as favourable as possible.

The claimant also invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in regard to the determination of the level of the fine imposed. According to the claimant, the basic amount of the fine was too high and the increases imposed for non-cooperation and its ostensible role as instigator and cartel leader were unjustified.

In conclusion, the claimant submits that the Commission refused to allow it access to the reactions to the heads of complaint of all the other parties to which those heads of complaint were addressed. In the claimant's view, that course of conduct is contrary to the rights of the defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/29

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Kaimer and Others v Commission

(Case T-379/06)

(2007/C 42/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding (Essen, Germany), SANHA GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) and Sanha Italia srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Brück, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the defendant's decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006, as amended by the defendant's decision of 29 September 2006, served on applicants 1 to 3 on 5 October 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings);

— in the alternative, reduce the duration of the alleged infringement by applicants 1 to 3 in Article 1 of the decision and cancel or reduce the fine imposed on applicants 1 to 3 in Article 3 of the decision;

— order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are 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 applicants 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.

The applicants put forward five pleas in support of their claims.

First of all, it is submitted, in particular, that the defendant based its reasoning on documents, in respect of which the applicants were not granted a fair hearing.

Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC. According to the applicants the contested decision is not adequately reasoned on the ground that the facts at issue were not properly assessed. In addition, exculpatory facts were not taken into account and evidence was incorrectly evaluated.

Furthermore, the applicants criticise the fact that the facts, as established by the Commission, were deemed to be a complex infringement contrary to Article 81(1) EC.

Fourthly, it is submitted, in the alternative, that the calculation of the fine reveals a misuse of powers in that it was based on an excessive duration of the infringement and that the applicants did not benefit from mitigating circumstances.

Finally, the applicants maintain that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality with the amount of the fine imposed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/21

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission

(Case T-351/06)

(2007/C 20/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Dura Vermeer Groep NV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Groep is concerned; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the 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 application the claimant first submits that the Commission has breached Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the claimant's view, the Commission's analysis is incorrect with regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance on parent company liability for an alleged breach by subsidiaries. The Commission for that reason imposed an excessively strict test on the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant alleges, the Commission misrepresented the factual description of the applicable relationships within the Dura Vermeer concern. The Commission therefore failed to demonstrate that the claimant exercised a determining influence over the conduct of Vermeer Infrastructuur BV.

Second, the claimant alleges infringement of the essential procedural requirements set out in Article 253 EC and of the principle that reasons must be given.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/43

Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Fahas v Council

(Case T-49/07)

(2007/C 95/90)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sofiane Fahas (Milkendorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Zillmer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC, by which the Council drew up an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which that regulation applies, and all decisions adopted in the meantime by the Council of the European Union in the meantime including Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006, which is currently in force, in so far as they concern the applicant;

— declare all aforementioned decisions up to and including Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 inapplicable to the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant damages for the harm suffered, the amount to be determined at the Court's discretion, but at least EUR 2 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant challenge Decision 2006/1008/EC (1) and all previous decisions since Decision 2002/848/EC (2), in so far as he is expressly listed in the contested legislation.

In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of his right to a fair hearing and his right to effective legal protection. In addition, Decision 2006/1008/EC is unfounded and thus is in breach of Article 253 EC.

(1) Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123).

(2) Council Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ 2002 L 295, p. 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 140/26

Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T-110/07)

(2007/C 140/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented by I. Brinker, T. Loest and C. Steinle, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, annul the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear) in so far as it affects the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 2(m) of the decision;

— in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its application.

First, the Commission is criticised for failing to demonstrate and prove the alleged infringements specifically and in detail. In particular, the Commission did not demonstrate and prove the effects of the alleged infringement on the common market and the EEA during the first phase of the alleged infringement up to 1999.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly assumed that there was a single continuous infringement and wrongly determined the duration of the infringement. According to the applicant, the Commission was unable to prove that the applicant had been involved in the alleged infringement after 22 April 1999. Furthermore, there was a breach of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), since, in the applicant's view, the limitation period had expired with respect to its participation in the alleged infringement during the first phase up to 1999.

Finally, the applicant complains of serious errors of law of the Commission in assessing the fine. It is submitted, for instance, in this respect that the Commission misassessed the seriousness and duration of the infringement and manifestly applied an excessive ‘deterrent multiplier’ to the applicant. In addition, the Commission wrongly found that the applicant had played a leading part and wrongly failed to take into account the applicant's cooperation with the Commission.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/49

Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Tegebauer v Parliament

(Case T-308/07)

(2007/C 269/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingo-Jens Tegebauer (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Nieporte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Declare null and void the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of 20 June 2007 on Petition No 0095/2007;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007, by which the petition submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 191(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament was put on the file without further action being taken. The applicant's petition relates to the partial recovery of the candidate's remuneration paid during his pre-service training for the career of senior general administrator with the municipality of Brunswick.

In support of his application, the applicant submits that the contested decision is not sufficiently well founded. In addition, he points out that the requirements for submission of a petition under Article 194 EC are met, in particular that it relates to a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him directly.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/15

Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council

(Case T-274/07)

(2007/C 223/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 452/2007 of 23 April 2007, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

— order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who manufactures ironing boards and the essential parts thereof in the People's Republic of China, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (1) to the extent that these measures apply to the applicant.

In support of its application, the applicant, first of all, submits that the Community institutions infringed Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation (2) as the Commission presented a proposal for anti-dumping measures to the Council based on a flawed determination that the applicant did not satisfy the Market Economy Status criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c).

Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Community institutions infringed Article 20(4) and (5) of the Basic Regulation and its right to be heard as the applicant was only given six days to respond to the Commissions revised final disclosure letter.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Community institutions infringed Article 8 of the Basic Regulation by failing to give proper consideration to the price undertakings offered by the applicant.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Community institutions infringed Article 5(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation by not disclosing the identity of the complainant initiating the investigation leading to the contested regulation.

(1) OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12.

(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).
—

Infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations: in recitals 19 and 26 in the preamble to the contested decision the Commission justifies the alternative conditions for considering that expenses were actually incurred before 31 December 2001 in the light of the guidelines announced at a meeting of the CDCR (Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions) held on 29 May 2002, those guidelines having been distributed in the CDCR after 31 December 2001. The applicant admits that those guidelines may contribute to ensuring the closing of the overall subsidies intended to subsidise interest payments and that the interest owed by the borrower is net of those subsidies. None the less, it is also necessary that the implementing decisions and the agreements reached have actually been designed in conformity with those solutions or are compatible with them, which is not the case with the SGAIA decision or the agreement in question. In the guidelines referred to above, the Commission admits that other methods exist for taking account of the expenses in question. One of those methods consists of the so-called ‘assumption’ of all the financing of the subsidies due after closure of the programme, which leads to the presumption that the legal guarantees are permissible. However, that ‘assumption’ actually takes place from the moment at which the CGD cannot require the beneficiaries to pay it more than the interest net of the subsidies. Thus, the contested decision ignores solutions which are more consistent with the SGAIA, easier to execute and less disadvantageous for the intermediary and for the beneficiaries and which are also capable of protecting the interests at stake. On the other hand, the Portuguese Republic and the CGD had legitimate expectations in relying on the subsidy in conditions which are different from those resulting from the guidelines referred to above since they were notified after the programme had been closed.