Case T-452/05: Action brought on  27 December 2005  — Belgian Sewing Thread 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 60/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant Lawyers' Association, taking the view that the
contested directive concerns it directly and individually as the
competent national authority responsible for assessing the
professional qualifications of
those seeking registration as
members, seeks by its action the annulment of certain provi-
sions of that directive. In its opinion, those provisions equate a
higher level of professional qualifications with the level directly
below and allow a Member State to proceed, by its national
provisions, to equate evidence of formal legal qualifications at
university level with evidence of
legal qualifications
obtained at a lower educational level and to grant the same
professional rights to holders of post-secondary level qualifica-
tions as to holders of university qualifications in law, albeit
without their satisfying the requirements laid down by the
home Member State.

formal

In support of its application, the applicant maintains that, in
issuing the contested directive,
the Community institutions
went far beyond the limits of their competence and encroached
upon the constitutional responsibilities of the Hellenic Republic
as regards the organisation and structure of university-level
education. In the same context, the applicant also alleges infrin-
gement of the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, proxi-
mity, cohesion, avoidance of misuse and mutual
respect
It also
between constitutional and Community authorities.
alleges infringement of Article 6 EU in so far as it considers
that, by the contested directive, the fundamental rights to free
education, freedom to choose and exercise a profession and
effective use of a recognised educational qualification have
been infringed.

The applicant further relies on infringement of the Community
acquis and consequently a conflict between the contested direc-
tive and Articles 2 and 3 EU. Lastly it alleges that insufficient
and contradictory reasons were given for
the contested
measure.

(1) OJ L 255 of 30.09.2005, p. 22.

Action brought on 27 December 2005 — Belgian Sewing
Thread v Commission

(Case T-452/05)

(2006/C 60/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread N.V.
Gilliams, lawyer)

(represented by: H.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that Court should:

(a) in the action for annulment:

— annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it finds that
the applicant participated in the infringement estab-
lished therein to the same extent as the other undertak-
ings involved in the infringement, and Article 2 of the
Decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant;

— in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fine
imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings;

(b) in the action for compensation:

— find that the Commission is liable under Articles 235

and 288 EC;

— order the Commission to pay all the damage suffered
and yet to be suffered by the applicant as result of the
Commission's publication of
the applicant's internal
price lists;

— order the Commission to pay interest on the damages,
at 8 % per annum with effect from the moment when
the Commission was at fault;

— order the Commission, pending the outcome of an
to pay in advance compensation of

expert's report,
EUR 705 812;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First of all, the applicant contests the Commission's decision of
14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment (Case 38.337 — PO/Thread) insofar as it finds that the
applicant participated in the infringement established there to
the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the
infringement, and seeks the annulment or at least a substantial
reduction of the fine imposed on it.

The applicant states that the infringement committed by it was
wrongly classified as very serious. The Commission thereby
infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article
23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), and also the obligation to state
reasons and the rights of the defence. According to the appli-
cant, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that
the applicant had not played any role whatsoever in the
conception and organisation of the infringement, did not parti-
cipate in the meetings in question with a view to making agree-
ments restrictive of competition, and the fact that the applicant
never implemented the agreements.

C 60/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

imposed. According to the applicant,

The applicant also challenges its placement in the second cate-
gory for determination of the basic amount, and the size of the
basic amount
the
Commission overrated the possibility of the applicant having a
real
impact on competition, both in an absolute sense in
comparison with the impact of the other undertakings involved
but also in the light of the applicant's precarious financial situa-
tion and the limited size of the market. It also submits in that
connection that the Commission infringed the principle of fair-
ness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003,
the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obliga-
tion to state reasons.

According to the applicant,
the Commission also wrongly
assessed attenuating circumstances in relation to the applicant
and infringed the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and
the obligation to state reasons. The Commission ought to have
taken into account as attenuating circumstances the fact that
the applicant did not implement the agreements made and that
it had played a very limited and passive role.

According to the applicant, a much too small a reduction in
the fine imposed was granted to it on account of its coopera-
tion with the investigation, in breach of the obligation to state
reasons, the principle of equality and proportionality and the
Leniency Notice.

Finally,
the applicant seeks compensation for the damage
suffered by it as result of the Commission's infringement of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the
obligation of secrecy, by publishing the applicant's internal
price lists.

(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)

Action brought on 20 December 2005 — Sumimoto
Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission

(Case T-454/05)

(2006/C 60/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Lyon,
France) and Philagro France SAS (Lyon, France) [represented
by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of Commission Decision D/430967;

or, in the alternative,

— order the defendant to comply with its obligations under
Community law and propose the inclusion of procymidone
in Annex I to the PPPD for all uses/crops, as requested by
the applicants;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicants in the
provisional amount of 1 (one) Euro for damages suffered as
a result of Commission Decision D/430967, or, in the alter-
native, as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with
its obligations under Community law by failing to respond
to the applicants, as well as any applicable interests,
pending the exact calculation and determination of
the
exact amount;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 (1) concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (known as the ‘plant protec-
tion products directive’ or ‘PPPD’) provides that Member States
shall not authorise a product unless it is inscribed in Annex I
of the Directive. The applicants have repeatedly contacted the
Commission with a view to ensuring that procymidone, the
active substance contained in their plant protection products,
should be included in Annex I.

By letter of
the 20 October 2005, which constitutes the
contested Decision, the Commission informed the first appli-
cant that possible inclusion of procymidone in Annex I would,
at most, cover the supported uses that have been the subject of
EU evaluation; it further makes such inclusion conditional on
the submission of a proposal for highly detailed conditions of
use and risk mitigation measures.

The applicants request the annulment of that Decision, criti-
cizing the proposed limited authorisation of procymidone,
which would lead to it being registered only for two crops,
namely plums and cucumbers, as well as the requirement for
highly detailed conditions of use. According to the applicant,
these requirements violated the PPPD which only refers to
broad use categories, such as insecticides, growth regulators or
herbicides, leaving it to the Member States to assess use in rela-
tion to specific crops. In the same context the applicants allege
that the requirement for detailed conditions is neither allowed
under the PPPD nor scientifically justified.