Case T-44/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Kaučuk v Commission
Date: 2007-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exchange of information, fine, price agreement, restriction on competition, rubber industry, trade information, unlawful agreement

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/49

this complaint

the appellant argues

is directly
that
Also,
connected to his second plea alleging infringement of the prin-
ciple of non-discrimination on the grounds of unlawful compo-
sition of the selection board. On that basis, the appellant claims
the Civil Service Tribunal did not properly implement
the
abovementioned principle, or at least failed to provide adequate
reasoning for the particular features of the competition at stake;
while it misunderstood his pleas and failed to address a number
of them.

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Kaučuk v
Commission

(Case T-44/07)

(2007/C 82/102)

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission:

— erred in law by imputing the conduct of its sales inter-
mediary Tavorex, an independent legal entity, to the appli-
cant;

— erred by failing to prove to the requisite legal standard that
Tavorex was involved in a single and continuous infringe-
ment from November 1999 until November 2002;

— committed a manifest error of appreciation by finding the
to prove Tavorex's involvement but

same facts sufficient
insufficient to prove the involvement of another producer;

— erred in law by applying EC competition law to the appli-
cant and Tavorex without establishing a sufficient connec-
tion between the applicant/Tavorex, the activity concerned
and the territory of the European Communities contrary to
the case law on extraterritorial application of EC competi-
tion law;

— committed a manifest error of

law and appreciation in
finding that the applicant, through Tavorex, committed an
infringement regarding butadiene rubber, a product
the
applicant neither produces nor sells;

Language of the case: English

— failed to establish,

whether
infringement intentionally or negligently; and

the applicant,

for the purposes of setting the fine,
through Tavorex, committed the

Parties

— committed a manifest error of

law and appreciation by

failing to apply its Fining Guidelines.

Applicant: Kaučuk a.s.
(represented by: M. Powell and K. Kuik, solicitors)

(Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v
Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 1 to 3 of the contested decision in whole or

in part insofar as they are addressed to the applicant;

— alternatively, annul Article 2 of

the contested decision
insofar as it imposes a fine of EUR 17.55 million on Kaučuk
and fix a substantially lower fine; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the

Parties

(Case T-45/07)

(2007/C 82/103)

Language of the case: English

proceedings.

Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented
by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Deci-
sion C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/
F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene
Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant,
together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC
and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic
Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing
customers by non-aggression agreements
and exchanging
information relating to prices, competitors and
commercial
customers.

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as

far as Unipetrol is concerned;

— otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-

ings.