Case T-61/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), aid system

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/43

— in the alternative, annul in part Article 1(1) insofar as it
relates to the applicants and annul in part, or alternatively,
reduce as appropriate the fine imposed by Article 2 on the
applicants; and

— in the further alternative, reduce substantially the amount
of the fine imposed by Article 2 upon the applicants; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
including default
incurred by the applicants or
either of them associated with the payment in whole or
part of the fine; and

interest

— take any other measures that the Court considers to be

appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the Contested Decision the Commission found that Bonar
Phormium Packaging (‘BPP’) had participated in a complex
cartel between manufacturers of plastic
industrial bags,
affecting Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Nether-
lands and Spain. It also found that this cartel had been orga-
nised at the European level around a trade association known
as Valveplast, along with various sub-groups. It found the first
applicant liable for BPP's participation on the grounds that it
was the parent company of Bonar Phormium NV (‘BP’), of
which BPP was a division, and the second applicant liable on
the grounds that it was the legal successor to BP, with which it
had effected a legal merger. The Commission imposed a fine of
12.24 million EUR on the applicants.

The applicants further and alternatively submit that the fine
imposed by the Commission was excessive and dispropor-
tionate and infringed the principles of equal treatment and
non-discrimination and that the Commission committed other
errors of law and assessment in determining the level of the
fine and furthermore failed to provide reasons to justify its
calculation of the fine. In this context the applicants allege that
the Commission failed to appreciate that BPP had played an
the
exclusively passive and limited role and that,
Commission imposed a disproportionately and excessively high
basic amount.

further,

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission

(Case T-61/06)

(2006/C 86/82)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s):
Avvocato dello Stato)

Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili,

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

The first applicant contends that the Commission committed
errors of law and assessment in finding it liable for the infringe-
ment committed by BPP. It alleges that, contrary to the findings
of the Contested Decision, it did not participate in the commer-
cial policy of BPP, whose management determined autono-
mously its conduct on the market.

Form of order sought

Both applicants further and alternatively contend that
the
Commission committed errors of law and assessment in finding
that the complex arrangement identified in the Contested Deci-
sion amounted to a single and continuous infringement of
Article 81 EC committed, at the European level, around Valve-
plast, alternatively in finding that BPP had participated in or
was otherwise aware of and thereby responsible for such an
infringement. According to the applicants, the Commission was
only entitled to find that BPP had participated in, or alterna-
tively was aware of and responsible for, arrangements covering
Belgium and the Netherlands and, of having participated in the
Valveplast cartel for one week only, i.e. between 21 November
1997, when a representative of BPP attended a Valveplast
meeting, and 28 November 1997 when, according to the
Contested Decision, BPP's participation came to an end.

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— Annul Memorandum No 12980 of 1.12.2005 concerning
interim costs and
the certification and declaration of
request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

— Annul Memorandum No 13683 of 13.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount
requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy
2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

— Annul Memorandum No 13684 of 13.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999IT 16 1 PO 009);

C 86/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

— Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No
CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

— Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2
(No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.

— Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning
NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European
Commission which differ from the amount requested;

— Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No
CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

— Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio
2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

— Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No
CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014);

— Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning
the certification and declaration of
interim costs and
request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

— Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

— Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

— Annul all connected and necessary measures;

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v
Commission

(Case T-62/06)

(2006/C 86/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) [represented by:
L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, M. Garcia, Solicitors]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Either:

— Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by
the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful
State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

— annul the entirety of the contested decision and order
that the present exemption authorised by Council Deci-
sion 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006
and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the
Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State
aid, or at least not be recovered;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

— Either: