Case T-79/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission
Date: 2006-02-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, industrial product, packaging product, restrictive trade practice

C 96/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

Action brought on 1 March 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case T-77/06)

(2006/C 96/51)

Language of the case: Italian

The pleas in law and main arguments are those invoked in
Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.

Parties

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Sachsa
Verpackung v Commission

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvo-
cato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-79/06)

(2006/C 96/52)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Parties

— annul

the European Commission's Memorandum No
14 012 of 19 December 2005 concerning the POR Sicilia
Programme (claim for payment No 2005 3489) containing
a request
in
Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the
eligibility of the payments on account made in the context
of aid schemes’;

to ‘comply with the conditions set out

— annul

the European Commission's Memorandum No
14 134 of 21 December 2005 concerning the POR Sicilia
Programme
(claim for payment SYSFIN 2005 3554)
containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out
in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the
eligibility of the payments on account made in the context
of aid schemes’;

— annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 765
of 25 January 2006 concerning the programme entitled
‘PON Ricerca scientifica, sviluppo tecnologico e alta forma-
zione’ (Scientific Research, Technological Development and
Higher Education)
(claim for payment No 20 053 784)
containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out
in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the
eligibility of the payments on account made in the context
of aid schemes’;

— annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 1 459
of 13 February 2006 concerning
POR Sicilia
(claim for payment SYSFIN 2006 0029)
Programme
containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out
in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the
eligibility of the payments on account made in the context
of aid schemes’;

the

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Applicant: Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (Wieda, Germany) (repre-
sented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside Articles 1(k), 2(i) and 4(21) of the decision;

— in the alternative, amend Article 2(i) of the decision and

reduce the amount of the fine;

— order the European Commission to pay all of the costs of

the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicant seeks the partial annulment
of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November
2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), by which the
Commission found that the undertakings to which the decision
was addressed, which included the applicant, had breached
Article 81 of the EC Treaty by participating in agreements or
concerted practices within the
in
Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, France and
Spain. In the part of its decision relating to the applicant, the
Commission found that the applicant had taken part in the
single and continuous breach and ordered it to pay a fine.

industrial-bags

sector

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/33

In support of its first submission, which it presents as its main
submission, the applicant sets out three pleas in law.

In the first of these, it alleges that the Commission committed a
manifest error of appraisal with regard to the extent of the
applicant's involvement in the cartel when it formed the view
that the applicant had played an active role in setting general
quotas, allocating customers and fixing prices.

The second plea in law alleges a lack of reasons inasmuch as
the Commission failed to set out adequate grounds in law to
substantiate its claim that the applicant had participated in a
‘Germany’ subgroup within the cartel.

By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commis-
sion breached Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)
and Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (2) by taking the view,
erroneously in the applicant's opinion, that it was not an inde-
that
pendent undertaking and by deciding, also incorrectly,
Groupe Gascogne, its parent company, was to be held jointly
and severally liable for the payment of the fine. The applicant
further argues that the Commission erred in its determination

of the portion of the fine attributable to the applicant for the
period of its participation in the breach, which consequently
exceeded the threshold of 10 % of its turnover.

In support of the alternative form of order which it seeks, the
applicant submits that
the Commission failed correctly to
assess the amount of the fine imposed and that it infringed the
principle of proportionality by misconstruing the seriousness
and duration of the breach, and by failing to take account of
mitigating circumstances and of the applicant's cooperation
under the leniency notice (3).

(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) Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regu-
the Treaty (OJ,

lation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of
English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

(3) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).