Case T-42/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, action for annulment (EU), freedom of expression, indemnification

C 86/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is the subject of the present action is the
same as that in Case T-11/06 Tabacchi v Commission. As regards
the applicant, the decision holds the company Alliance One
International
jointly liable in its capacity as the ultimate
holding company TRANSCATAB.

In support of
Commission:

its claims,

the applicant

submits that

the

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v
European Parliament

(Case T-42/06)

(2006/C 86/73)

Language of the case: French

— erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for
the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant
infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof,
failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance
One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of
10 % of turnover.

Parties

Applicant(s): Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France)
by: W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

(represented

— Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very
serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually
non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market,
the downstream market and consumers, as well as the
limited size of the relevant geographical market.

Defendant(s): European Parliament

— Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in
fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million.

Form of order sought

— Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to
1998 from that of the following period and considered
TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by
holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999
the Commission infringed the principle of
to 2002,
equality,
in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating
circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal
context was confused but did not apply the same finding to
the processors.

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

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of 13

December 2005 to adopt Report No A6-0376/2005,

— award Mr Gollnisch the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensa-

tion for non-material damage,

— further, award the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 by way
of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this
action.

— infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised
TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capa-
city as members of the Associazione professionale Trasfor-
matori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Erred in failing to apply any of the attenuating circum-
stances cited by the applicant, such as its cooperation, the
failure to perform the agreements, the interruption of those
agreements or the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the
nature of the infringing conduct.

By this action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parlia-
ment, seeks the annulment of the decision made by the Parlia-
ment in plenary sitting on 13 December 2005 to adopt the
report of the Committee on Legal Affairs No A6-0376/2005
concerning remarks the applicant made at a press conference
and consequently not to defend his immunity and privileges.
He also seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
as a result of the contested decision.

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/37

In support of his application, the applicant relies on several
pleas in law alleging inter alia the unlawfulness of the form of
the decision of Parliament whose annulment
its
is sought,
law such as legal
inconsistency with general principles of
certainty and protection of legitimate expectations and proce-
dural irregularities at the time of its adoption. He also submits
that the contested decision is contrary to the precedents set by
previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the
European Parliament as regards freedom of expression and
fumus persecutionis and that it undermines the independence of
an elected representative in that, according to the applicant, it
is disputed that he spoke in the exercise of his national and
European political activities at the press conference in question.

Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-43/06)

(2006/C 86/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofira SAC (Rousset Cedex, France) (represented by:
Girolamo Addessi, Leonilda Mari, Daniella Magurno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

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

— annul the fine imposed on Cofira SAC;

— impose the fines jointly and severally on all the companies
that came into existence upon the demerger of Cofira
Sepso;

— reduce the amount of the fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ment common models, calculate prices, share markets, allocate
sales quotas, customers, business and orders, collude in under-
mining certain invitations to tender and exchange individual
information.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains first and fore-
most that the decision should not have been addressed to it.

In this regard, it is pointed out that on 27 November 2003
COFIRA SEPSO, which, along with other concerns, was investi-
gated, was split into three companies, one of them being the
applicant. COFIRA SAC therefore came into existence after the
occurrence of the events which gave rise to the imposition of
penalties by the Commission.

The contested decision does not even state the grounds on
which the fine was imposed on the applicant alone, when all of
the companies which came into existence as a result of the
demerger of COFIRA SEPSO should have been required to
answer for the wrongful acts alleged.

Nor does the decision state the basis on which the total
amount of the fine was calculated, bearing in mind the fact
that fines are commensurate to turnover and that at the time of
the alleged events the applicant did not have any turnover as it
did not exist.

Furthermore, the Commission does not set out the elements of
fact which constituted the infringement. In fact, the whole deci-
sion is based on the assumption that the meetings between the
representatives of the companies amounted, subsequently and
in fact, to conduct contrary to Article 81 EC, and that such
practices had a significant impact on competition. However,
even if the facts relied on by the Commission were accepted,
the fifteen year limitation period has expired.

Action brought on 14 February 2006 — Commission v
Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic
Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants

(Case T-44/06)

(2006/C 86/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Article 1 of the contested decision states that certain undertak-
ings, including the applicant, infringed Community competition
rules during the period from 24 March 1982 to 26 June 2002
by participating in agreements and concerted practices in the
industrial plastic bag sector
in Belgium, Germany, Spain,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands. According to the defendant,
the purpose of those infringements was to fix prices, imple-

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and by S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)