Case T-359/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission
Date: 2006-12-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), bituminous materials, fine, inter-company agreement, oil industry, road building, unlawful agreement

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/25

The claimant also invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of
Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in regard to the determin-
ation of the level of the fine imposed. According to the clai-
mant,
the fine was too high and the
increases imposed for non-cooperation and its ostensible role as
instigator and cartel leader were unjustified.

the basic amount of

the claimant submits

In conclusion,
the Commission
refused to allow it access to the reactions to the heads of
complaint of all the other parties to which those heads of
complaint were addressed. In the claimant's view, that course of
conduct is contrary to the rights of the defence.

that

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Wegenbouw-
maatschappij J. Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-358/06)

(2007/C 20/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. (represented
by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to Heij-

mans N.V. and Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V.;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on Heijmans N.V. and

Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V.;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

is challenging the Commission's decision of
The claimant
13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article
81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL). Although
the decision is not addressed to the claimant, it takes the view
that it is directly and individually concerned by it inasmuch as it
is mentioned in the decision as being part of the Heijmans
Group and must expect, by reason of the decision, to be held
liable in regard to the conduct in issue.

In support of its action, the claimant first of all submits that
there has been a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 2, 7
and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the Commission
wrongly assumed that the Netherlands market for bitumen used
in road construction constituted the relevant economic context
for the appraisal of the evidence against Heijmans Infrastructuur
B.V. The claimant further submits that the Commission also

wrongly assumed that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. was part of
a permanent cartel of road construction undertakings operating
with regard to the purchase of bitumen for road construction
and, in that capacity, colluded with the suppliers of bitumen in
the Netherlands with a view to restricting competition. Lastly,
according to the claimant, the Commission unjustly failed, on
the basis of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation, to check
solely the consequences of the participation of Heijmans Infra-
structuur B.V.in that collusion. (1)

Second, the claimant alleges that there has been a breach of
Article 81 EC and of Articles 11 and 16 of Regulation No 1/
2003, as well as infringement of the duty of care, the general
principles of sound administration, the principle of equality and
the rights of the defence by reason of the fact that the Commis-
sion disregarded the reasoned substantive and procedural
defence submissions made by Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. and
Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. during the adminis-
trative procedure as being an 'innocent interpretation of the
events'.

Third, the claimant alleges infringement of the principle that
reasons must be given in that the decision is unclear or ambig-
uous in certain vital sections.

the claimant argues the
By way of alternative submission,
Commission has adduced no, or
insufficient, evidence to
substantiate the claim that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. partici-
pated in the alleged infringement over the entire period thereof.

Also in the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commis-
sion incorrectly assessed the gravity and scope of the infringe-
ment. It argues that Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. played merely
a minor role on the relevant market.

(1) Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to hori-
zontal cooperation agreements (text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001
C 3, p. 2).

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infra-
structuur v Commission

(Case T-359/06)

(2007/C 20/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. (represented by: M.F.A.M.
Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 20/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2007

Form of order sought

— set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to the

claimant;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant
is challenging the Commission's decision of
13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article
81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a
fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes the same pleas in
law and arguments as those set out by the claimant in Case T-
358/06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans v
Commission

(Case T-360/06)

(2007/C 20/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

The claimant first submits that there has been a breach of
Article 81 EC and of Articles 2, 7 and 23(3) of Regulation
No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission has not
proved that the claimant is a unitary organisation of natural
persons and of material and immaterial assets which acted
contrary to Article 81 EC by regulating the fixing of bitumen
prices in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the claimant contends,
there is no basis in law on which the claimant can be held prin-
cipally liable and that determination of liability is unreasonable.

In support of its action, the claimant also relies on the similar
pleas and arguments submitted by the claimant in Case T-358/
06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Ballast Nedam v
Commission

(Case T-361/06)

(2007/C 20/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Ballast Nedam N.V. (represented by: A.R. Bosman and
J.M.M. van de Hel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Claimant: Heijmans NV (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.
M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul in whole or in part the decision addressed to the clai-

mant;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

— annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of
claimant on
13 September 2006, notified
25 September 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article
81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), to the
extent to which that decision is addressed to the claimant;

to the

— in the alternative, annul the decision in part, to the extent to
which it is addressed to the claimant, with regard to the
duration of the infringement and reduce the fine imposed
on the claimant accordingly;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant
is challenging the Commission's decision of
13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article
81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), whereby a
fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

The claimant
is challenging the Commission's decision of
13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article
81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a
fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.