Case T-376/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Legris Industries v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-12-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), copper, exchange of information, fine, plumbing equipment, price agreement, restriction on competition, trade information

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Legris Industries
v Commission of the European Communities

The applicant
is challenging Commission Decision C(2006)
4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 —
Fittings. In the contested the decision a fine was imposed on the
applicant for breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the
EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant
took part in a series of agreements in the form of price-fixing,
establishing price lists and rebates, establishing mechanisms for
the implementation of price increases, dividing up markets and
customers and exchanging other economic information on the
market for copper fittings and copper alloy fittings, from 12
December 1991 until 22 March 2001.

Parties

(Case T-376/06)

(2007/C 42/48)

Language of the case: French

The applicant puts forward four pleas in support of its claim.

Applicant: Legris Industries (Rennes, France) (represented by: A.
Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

It is submitted, first, that the contested decision infringes Article
23(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1), on the ground that the
defendant infringed fundamental principles in the assessment of
fines by incorrectly determining the applicable turnover. The
defendant, in assessing the severity of the alleged infringement
by the applicant, should have taken into account the turnover
of press fittings when determining the turnover, even though
the applicant did not at any time participate in anti-competitive
practices in respect of press fittings.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed
Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC by incorrectly establishing
the participation, and the duration of that participation, in the
conduct of which it is accused. According to the applicant, the
defendant failed to produce substantive evidence in relation to
the applicant and erred in finding that
infringements were
committed.

In addition, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, breach of
Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC, on the ground that the
geographic scope of
the
contested decision in relation to the applicant was incorrectly
established.

the infringements in Article 1 of

fines. The applicant submits,

Finally, the applicant alleges that Article 2 of the contested deci-
sion infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation No. 1/2003, on the
ground that the Commission infringed fundamental principles
in the assessment of
in this
connection,
the Guidelines on the method of setting
fines (2) were incorrectly applied in that the Commission classed
the infringement as particularly serious, incorrectly established
the duration of the infringement, incorrectly increased the basic
amount of the fine on account of the duration of the infringe-
ment and failed to assess the mitigating circumstances.

that

(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 2002 L 1, p. 1).

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of
20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints,
together with the grounds on which the operative part was
reached, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on the
holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices
at issue of Comap being imputed to Legris Industries in its
capacity as a holding company;

— allow the holding company Legris Industries to adopt the
sought and claims
forms of order

written pleadings,
submitted by Comap against the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of
Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September
2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/F-1/
38.121 — Joints), concerning a series of agreements and
concerted practices on the market for copper joints and copper
alloys having as their object price fixing, the drawing up of
price lists and lists of rebates and discounts, the putting in place
of coordination arrangements for price increases, the sharing of
national markets and customers, together with the exchange of
other business information, in so far as that decision imposes a
fine of the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the
practices at issue of its former subsidiary Comap being imputed
to it.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes the following
pleas in law.

First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC in
committed by its
imputing to it disputed infringements
in holding it jointly and
subsidiary Comap and, accordingly,
severally liable for those infringements.
the
It submits that
Commission infringed the principle of the legal and commercial
autonomy of
the subsidiary and the principle of personal
responsibility in the field of competition law in considering that
the holding by the applicant of the entire issued share capital of

C 42/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

the subsidiary was sufficient to establish the exercise of a deter-
minative influence over the latter. The applicant also claims that
the Commission committed errors of law, errors of fact and
manifest errors of assessment in that it failed to adduce evidence
to show that the holding company Legris Industries had effec-
tive control over the actings of Comap.

The applicant also claims that
the Commission committed
errors of law in that it failed to rebut the evidence put forward
by the applicant to show Comap's autonomy, in particular as
regards the determination and direction of its trading policy.
The applicant claims to have demonstrated that it did not give
instructions to Comap in relation to its conduct on the market,
that its role was merely that of financial supervision which did
include the giving of directions to its subsidiaries in
not
budgetary matters and that Comap had access to its own
sources of finance. Consequently, it argues that mere evidence
of the connection established by its holding in the capital of the
subsidiary and the direct consequences resulting from such a
connection, on which, according to the applicant, the Commis-
sion based its decision to impute the infringements committed
by its subsidiary to the applicant, cannot be evidence of the
exercise of effective control over the actings of that subsidiary.

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Comap v
Commission

(Case T-377/06)

(2007/C 42/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comap SA (Lyons, France) (represented by A. Wachs-
mann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of
20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints,
together with the grounds on which the operative part of
the decision was reached, in so far as that decision censures
Comap for periods other than that between December 1997
and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not chal-
lenge the facts set out by the Commission;

— amend Articles 1 and 2 and the grounds on which they
the fine of

were reached, by reducing the amount of
EUR 18.56 million imposed on Comap;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of
Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September
2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/F-1/
38.121 — Joints), concerning a series of agreements and
concerted practices on the market for copper joints and copper
alloys having as their object price fixing, the drawing up of
price lists and lists of rebates and discounts, the putting in place
of coordination arrangements for price increases, the sharing of
national markets and customers, together with the exchange of
other business information, in so far as that decision censures
Comap for periods other than that between December 1997
and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not chal-
lenge the facts set out by the Commission. In the alternative, it
seeks a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it by
the contested decision.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes the following
pleas in law.

First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and
committed errors of law, errors of fact and manifest errors of
assessment in finding that the alleged cartel continued after on-
the-spot investigations by the Commission in March 2001, until
April 2004.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed
Article 81(1) EC and Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in
that it did not acknowledge that, since no evidence of anti-
competitive practices could be produced, the alleged infringe-
ment was interrupted for a period of 27 months, between
September 1992 and December 1994, with the result, according
to the applicant, that facts occurring prior to December 1994
were subject to limitation when the Commission's investigation
opened in January 2001.

In the alternative, the applicant puts forward a plea based on
infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation
No 1/2003, together with the Guidlines on the method of
setting fines (2) and the Leniency Notice (3), in that the Commis-
sion failed to comply with the rules on the method of setting
fines. It argues that the Commission infringed the principle of
proportionality and the principle of equal treatment in that the
starting amount
the purposes of calculating the fine
imposed on Comap was, according to it, unduly high in
comparison with the starting amounts chosen in respect of the
other undertakings censured by the contested decision, notwith-
standing that their competitive position was comparable to the
position held on the market by the applicant.

for

(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) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC
Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

(3) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).