Case T-455/05: Action brought on  29 December 2005  — Componenta Oyj v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, investment aid

C 48/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

Action brought on 16 December 2005 — Oxley Threads v
Commission

(Case T-448/05)

(2006/C 48/79)

Language of the case: English

Commission's own findings and evidence,
its participation in
the cartel had less importance and impact on competition than
that of other undertakings concerned,
in particular the two
undertakings for which the same starting amount was fixed.

The applicant also contends that the Commission infringed its
obligation to state reasons in assessing the appropriate starting
amount, that it infringed its own guidelines and committed a
manifest error of assessment in failing to take proper account
of the degree of cooperation by the applicant and that
it
infringed its own guidelines, the principle of equal treatment
and committed a manifest error of assessment in categorising
the cartel in question as a ‘very serious’ infringement.

Parties

Applicant: Oxley Threads Ltd (Ashton-Under-Lyne, United
Kingdom) [represented by: G. Peretz, Barrister, M. Rees, K.
Vernon, Solicitors]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 29 December 2005 — Componenta
Oyj v Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 2(b) of the Commission's Decision of 14
September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
EC and Article 53 EEA in case 38.337 — PO/Thread
insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant of 1.271
million EUR or, in the alternative, reduce that fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Parties

(Case T-455/05)

(2006/C 48/80)

Language of the case: Finnish

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested Decision the Commission found that
the
applicant, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81
EC and Article 53 EEA by participating in agreements and
concentrated practices affecting the markets of automotive
thread in the EEA. As a result,
it imposed a fine of 1.271
million EUR on the applicant.

In support of its application against the contested Decision, the
applicant contends first of all that the Commission infringed
the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as well as
its own guidelines when it fixed the starting amount for the
fine without taking into account the fact that, contrary to the
other participants, the applicant is a small and medium-sized
enterprise and very much smaller, by reference to any indicator,
to any other participant. According to the applicant,
the
Commission fixed the same starting amount for it as for two
other participants 71 times bigger than it in terms of total turn-
over.
In the same context, the applicant considers that the
Commission failed to take the grossly disproportionate impact
the fine could be expected to have on it into account or the
it was only
fact
becoming established as a significant player in the supply of
automotive thread to customers in the EEA outside the United
Kingdom. Finally, the applicant submits that according to the

the infringements,

the time of

that, at

Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by:
M. Savola, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20
October 2005 on State aid granted by Finland to Compo-
nenta as investment aid;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs with

interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action concerns Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final
of 20 October 2005 finding that the Finnish State had granted
Componenta State aid prohibited under Article 87 EC (aid No
C 37/2004, ex NN 51/2004).

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/43

The Commission considered that the aid had been granted in
the context of an arrangement in two parts in which, first,
Componenta sold its holding (50 %) in the property investment
company Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy to the municipality
of Karkkila, which already owned 50 % of that company, and,
second, the property investment company repaid Componenta
the shareholder's loan invested in that company. At the same
time the municipality of Karkkila invested in the company a
new additional loan in the same amount.

As regards the investment clause in the sale contract, the appli-
cant submits that the Commission assessed that clause and its
significance incorrectly.

(1) OJ 1993 C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.

According to the Commission, the State aid consists of both
the purchase price and the repayment of the shareholder's loan.

Action brought on 17 January 2006 — Equant Belgium v
Commission

The applicant refers inter alia to the following points in
support of its application:

The Commission's decision is incorrect and unlawful
in its
entirety as regards both its grounds and its amount. The appli-
cant claims that the Commission committed a breach of essen-
tial procedural requirements and an abuse of discretion, since it
made a manifestly wrong assessment of the evidence put to it
during the investigative procedure. The applicant also submits
that the Commission's decision is contrary to the provisions of
Article 87 EC on State aid. It further asserts that the conclusion
of the decision is unreasonable with respect to it and in breach
of the principle of proportionality laid down in the third para-
graph of Article 5 EC.

The applicant submits that the Commission applied the wrong
procedure when assessing the value of the shares in the prop-
erty investment company which were the subject of the trans-
action. The applicant claims, contrary to the Commission's
view,
the value of the subject of the transaction was
assessed in accordance with market conditions at the time of
the transaction.

that

As regards the shareholder's loan arrangement, the applicant
submits that no economic advantage accrued to it as a result of
the arrangement. In its view, the Commission wrongly assessed
the nature and significance of the arrangement. In addition, the
reasons stated in the Commission's decision concerning the
shareholder's loan arrangement are in the applicant's view
unclear and defective.

(Case T-9/06)

(2006/C 48/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equant Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) [represented
by: T. Müller-Ibold, T. Graf, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

(i) the decision of

the European Commission dated
December 6, 2005 to suspend the signing of
the
contract identified in the Commission's earlier decision
of November 3, 2005 relating to the award of the
contract pursuant to the following procurement proce-
dure: ‘Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011
— Lot 1 Secured Trans European Services for Tele-
matics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

(ii) the decision of

the European Commission dated
December 27, 2005 to reject the Offer submitted by
Equant/HP in the framework of the Restricted invita-
tion to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured
Trans European Services
for Telematics between
administrations (s-TESTA)’ and to tacitly withdraw its
decision in favour of Equant/HP dated November 3,
2005; and

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision
conflicts with the practice it followed in other State aid cases
and does not correspond to the principles set out
in the
Commission's communication to the Member States on the
application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of
Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public
undertakings in the manufacturing sector. (1)

(iii) the decision of the European Commission communi-
cated to the Applicant by the same letter of December
27, 2005 to select another tenderer for the award of
the contract in the framework of the Restricted invita-
tion to tender No. ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured
Trans European Services
for Telematics between
administrations (s-TESTA)’;