Case T-123/07: Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission & Distribution v Commission
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), competition law, electrical equipment, fine, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/31

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens and VA
TECH Transmission & Distribution v Commission

(Case T-122/07)

(2007/C 140/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (Vienna,
Applicants:
Austria) and VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH &
Co. KEG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann and F.
Urlesberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds
that the applicants infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53
the EEA Agreement during the period from 20
of
September 1998 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9
October 2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

— annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the

applicants are affected;

cogent proof

Commission found without
that until 13
December 2000 the alleged infringement had as its purpose or
effect a restriction of competition within the Community.
Finally, it is submitted in connection with the first plea in law
that when the fines were assessed mitigating circumstances and
the leniency notice were wrongly left out of account.

Second, the applicants submit that the Commission breached
essential procedural
In this connection they
complain of a breach of the right to be heard.

requirements.

(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 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission
& Distribution v Commission

(Case T-123/07)

(2007/C 140/53)

Language of the case: German

— in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants
in Article 2(l) of the decision to an amount not exceeding
EUR 1 980 000;

Parties

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant: Siemens Transmission & Distribution (Manchester,
United Kingdom) (represented by H. Wollmann and F. Urles-
berger, lawyers)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2006) 6762
final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-
isolated switchgear.
In the contested decision fines were
imposed on the applicants and other undertakings for infringe-
ment of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
According to the Commission, the applicants took part in a set
of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-
isolated switchgear sector.

The applicants base their application primarily on breach of
Article 81(1) EC and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No
1/2003 (1).
the fine
In this connection they complain that
imposed on VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH &
Co. KEG is disproportionately high in relation to the fines
imposed on other undertakings. Furthermore, the way in which
the Commission attempted to divide a total amount of fines up
among various companies breached the ne bis in idem principle.
In addition, the applicants assert that the Commission incor-
rectly assessed the duration of the infringement. Further, the

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds
that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53
of the EEA Agreement during the period from 15 April
1988 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9 October
2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

— annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the

applicant is affected;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant
in Article 2(l) of the decision to an amount not exceeding
EUR 1 100 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 140/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2006) 6762
final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-
isolated switchgear.
In the contested decision fines were
imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringe-
ment of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a set
of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-
isolated switchgear sector.

the applicant asserts that

The applicant bases its application primarily on breach of
Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No
1/2003 (1) and Article 25 of that regulation. In this connection
it complains that the fine imposed on it exceeds 10 % of its
turnover in the last trading year before the decision. Further-
more, the Commission did not take account of the individual
circumstances of the applicant when setting the fine. In addi-
tion,
the Commission incorrectly
assessed the duration of the infringement by the applicant. For
the period before 16 July 1998 the prosecution was moreover
already out of time. Further, the Commission found without
cogent proof that until 13 December 2000 the alleged infringe-
ment had as its purpose or effect a restriction of competition
within the Community. Finally,
it is submitted in connection
with the first plea in law that the applicant was wrongly accused
of having itself taken part in the agreements after 2002.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission breached
essential procedural
connection it
In this
complains of a breach of the right to be heard.

requirements.

(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 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission
& Distribution and Nuova Magrini Galileo v Commission

(Case T-124/07)

(2007/C 140/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA (Grenoble,
France) and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (Bergamo, Italy) (repre-
sented by H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds
that the applicants infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53
of the EEA Agreement during the period from 15 April
1988 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9 October
2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

— annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the

applicants are affected;

— in the alternative, reduce the fines reduce the fines imposed
on the applicants in Article 2(l) of
the decision to an
amount not exceeding EUR 2 750 000 for the first and
EUR 1 100 000 for the second applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2006) 6762
final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-
isolated switchgear.
In the contested decision fines were
imposed on the applicants and other undertakings for infringe-
ment of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
According to the Commission, the applicants took part in a set
of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-
isolated switchgear sector.

The applicants base their application primarily on breach of
Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No
1/2003 (1) and Article 25 of that regulation. In this connection
they complain that the fines imposed on them exceed 10 % of
their turnover in the last
trading year before the decision.
Furthermore, the Commission did not take account of the indi-
vidual circumstances of the applicants when setting the fine. In
addition, the applicants assert that the determination of the
undertakings together with which they are to be jointly liable
and the amounts of the fines imposed on the individual joint
debtors are incomprehensible and incorrect. The Commission
also exaggerated the duration of the alleged infringement and
did not recognise that the limitation period had expired for the
predominant part of it. Finally,
it is submitted in connection
with the first plea in law that the Commission found without
cogent proof that until 13 December 2000 the alleged infringe-
ment had as its purpose or effect a restriction of competition
within the Community.

Second, the applicants submit that the Commission breached
essential procedural
In this connection they
complain of a breach of the right to be heard.

requirements.

(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 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).