Case T-456/05: Action brought on  30 December 2005  — Gütermann v Commission
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, iron and steel industry, unlawful agreement, wire

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/45

The applicants further submit that the contested Decision errs
when it states that studies submitted after the fixed deadlines
cannot be examined because, according to the applicants, all
procymidone data were timely submitted. They also consider
that the contested Decision violates Articles 95(3) and 152(1)
EC by refusing to consider studies submitted in time and found
satisfactory by the evaluators.

The applicants also invoke violations of the PPPD, of Regu-
lation 3600/92 (2), of the principles of sound administration, of
subsidiarity and proportionality, of legitimate expectations and
legal certainty, of the excellence and independence of scientific
advice, of equal treatment and ‘estoppel’ and of the duty to
state reasons.

Should the court consider that the contested letter is not an act
which can be challenged under Article 230(4) EC, the appli-
cants submit that their action is still admissible under Article
232 EC against the Commission's failure to act upon their
administrative complaint and formal request. In addition and
independently of the actions for annulment and failure to act,
the applicants claim compensation for damages suffered as a
direct consequence of the contested letter.

(1) OJ L 230, 19/08/1991, p. 1.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992
laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first
stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, OJ L 366, 15/12/1992, p. 10

Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Gütermann v
Commission

(Case T-456/05)

(2006/C 60/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gütermann Aktiengesellschaft
(Gutach-Breisgau,
Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter, B. Kasten and S. Orli-
kowski-Wolf, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(1) of the Decision in so far as it declares
that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of
regards Sweden, Norway and
the EEA Agreement as
Finland also in the period from January 1990 up to and
including December 1993;

— annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine

of EUR 4,021 million on the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed

on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is challenging Commission Decision C(2005)
3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/
Thread (amended by the defendant's decision of 13 October
2005). In the contested decision a fine was imposed on the
applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of
the EEA Agreement.

In support of its application the applicant is relying on four
pleas in law.

First, it alleges breach of Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003. (1)
In this connection it submits that the finding as to the duration
of the infringements in Article 1(1) of the contested decision is
incorrect.

In its second plea in law the applicant submits that there has
been an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No
17/1962 (2) or of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. It
considers that Article 2 of the contested decision infringes
fundamental principles regarding the assessment of fines. In
addition, it is submitted that those provisions were infringed by
Article 2 of the contested decision due to misapplication of the
1996 Leniency Notice.

Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 2 of the contested
decision amounts to an infringement of
the principle of
proportionality as insufficient regard was had to the individual
position of the applicant in fixing the 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 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Arti-
cles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-
1962, p. 87).