Case T-449/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  — Dikigorikos Sillogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), free education, legal profession, recognition of vocational training qualifications

C 60/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Aman & Söhne
and Cousin Filterie v Commission

(Case T-446/05)

(2006/C 60/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim,
Germany) and Cousin Filterie S.A.S. (Wervicq, France) (repre-
sented by: A. Röhling and M. Dietrich)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the

applicants;

— in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed

on the applicants to an appropriate amount;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2005)
3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/
Thread (supplemented by the defendant's decision C(2005)
3765 of 13 October 2005). In the contested decision fines
were imposed on the applicants for infringement of Article 81
EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

threads due to wrongful differentiation in establishing the
initial amount, incorrect calculation as regards the duration of
the infringement and wrongful failure to take account of exten-
uating circumstances.

The applicants submit incorrect application of the Guidelines
regarding the automobile industry as their fifth plea in law.
lies in
That infringement by the Commission, they submit,
incorrect calculation of the basic amount and failure to take
account of the fact that the infringement was not implemented.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the defendant infringed the
right to a fair hearing pursuant to Article 27(1) of Regulation
No 1/2003 and the applicants' rights of defence under Article
27(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

(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).

Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Dikigorikos
Sillogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of
the European Union

(Case T-449/05)

(2006/C 60/82)

Language of the case: Greek

In support of their application the applicants rely on six pleas
in law.

Parties

First, they allege infringement of the first sentence of Article
7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1).
In this connection they
submit that the Commission erred in law in Article 1 of the
contested decision in assuming three separate infringements of
Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. In
reality there was one single infringement within the terms of
Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003. Furthermore, the defen-
dant erred in establishing the duration of the infringement.

In their second plea in law the applicants submit 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. In
their opinion the Commission infringed those provisions in
imposing fines exceeding ten percent of the total worldwide
turnover of the Amann Group.

Furthermore,
the Commission
contested decision of
infringes the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

the

Fourthly, Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG alleges the incorrect
sewing
application of

regarding industrial

the Guidelines

Applicant: Dikigorikos Sillogos Ioanninon (Ioannina Lawyers'
Association) (Ioannina, Greece) (represented by: Sotirios Atha-
nasiou)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European
Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition
of professional qualifications (1), as regards Articles 11(c)(i)
and (ii), 11(d), 12, 13, 50(3) thereof;

— order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the

costs.

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.