Case T-54/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), building industry, equal treatment, fine, legal hearing, plaster

C 101/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

In support of
following contentions:

its application the applicant submits the

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA
against Commission of the European Communities

— the defendant violated the rights of the defence and the
principle of equality of arms. More specifically,
the
applicant alleges that the defendant used information
obtained from a third party as well as information
contained in the replies of the other parties to the
defendant, and that all of that information was not
revealed to the applicant.

— the evidence advanced by the defendant does not substan-
tiate its claims and the defendant has failed to meet the
high standard of proof which the applicant considers is
required in such proceedings.

— the defendant made manifest errors in its assessment of
to an incorrect decision and

leading it

information,
misuse of its powers.

— the defendant violated Article 253, EC, in that it failed to
provide sufficient or adequate reasons for its decision

The applicant further contends that in setting the fine the
defendant misapplied its powers under Article 15, paragraph 2,
of Regulation 17/62 and its own Guidelines on setting
fines, violated the principles of Community law and acted
unreasonably. In particular, the applicant contends that:

— the basic amounts of the fine imposed for gravity and
duration are disproportionate, arbitrary, and contrary to
the principles of proportionality and equal treatment

— the 50 % uplift for aggravating circumstances is excessive
and disproportionate and offends the principle of equal
treatment

(Case T-54/03)

(2003/C 101/81)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties 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.

its claims,

the applicant alleges that

the
In support of
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 defendant failed to take account of any attenuating

The applicant also takes the view that:

circumstances

— the defendant erred in its application of its Leniency
Notice in violation of the principles of equal treatment
and legitimate expectation

— the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing guaran-

teed 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.

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/47

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:

and the remuneration corresponding to classification in
the next higher grade and step, together with default
interest at 5,7 % per annum as from 16 March 2001;

— imposing on the applicant a fine in excess of 10 % of its

worldwide turnover;

— order the defendant to pay damages and interests assessed,
ex æquo et bono, at EUR 500 a month as from 16 March
2001 until the date they are paid;

— imposing on the applicant an global fine in respect of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

allegedly discrete infringements;

— increasing the ‘starting amount’ as a deterrent and on the

ground of aggravating circumstances;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— 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.

The applicant in these proceedings challenges the decision of
the appointing authority refusing to classify him in Grade A6,
Step 3, on his taking up his duties with the defendant following
competition EUR/A/154 for the recruitment of administrators
(career bracket A 7/A 6) in auditing and accounting.

In support of his claims he alleges:

— infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, of
the decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria
applicable to appointment to grade and classification in
step on recruitment and of the Administrative Guide;

Action brought on 12 February 2003 by Philippe Brendel
against Commission of the European Communities

— infringement of the principle patere quam ipse legem

fecisti and of equal treatment;

(Case T-55/03)

(2003/C 101/82)

— that there was in the circumstances a manifest error of

assessment;

— disregard of the duty to have regard to the interests of

officials and the duty to state reasons;

(Language of the case: French)

— infringement of Article 39 EC.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2003 by Philippe
Brendel, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
3 May 2002 classing the applicant in Grade A 7, Step 2
with effect
from 16 March 2001 and, so far as is
the decision of 25 October 2002,
necessary, annul
notified on 4 November 2002, to reject the applicant’s
complaint;

Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-56/03)

(2003/C 101/83)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— order the defendant to pay the balance of the remuner-
ation consisting of the difference between the remuner-
ation corresponding to classification in Grade A 7, Step 2,

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the