Case C-534/07 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05 William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, control of restrictive practices, fine, haberdashery, rights of the defence

C 37/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by William Prym
GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH against
the judgment of
Instance (Second
the Court of First
Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05
William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer
the European
GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-534/07 P)

(2008/C 37/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer
GmbH (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and Ch. Hermann,
lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

1. To set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case
T-30/05, in so far as it affects the appellants,

2. To annul Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of
26 October 2004 (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles),
in so far as it affects the appellants,

In the alternative, to annul or reduce the fine imposed on
the appellants by Article 2 of that decision,

3. In the alternative to the second form of order sought, to
refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judg-
ment,

4. To order the respondents in the appeal proceedings to pay

the costs of the whole proceedings.

— The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that there
was no infringement of the duty to state reasons under
It wrongly considered the inadequate
Article 253 EC.
the markets
the size of
analysis by the Commission of
considered to be relevant in the case and in relation to the
concrete effects of the infringement on the market to be of
no legal significance.

— The Court of First Instance infringed the Guidelines on the
Method of Setting Fines. It determined the gravity of the
infringement by reference merely to the abstract form of the
infringement and treated the lowest amount of an aggra-
vating category as representing a minimum amount which
could not be reduced. It also refused to treat the voluntary
termination of the infringement as an attenuating circum-
stance, and in so doing infringed the principles of the rule
of law and equal treatment.

— Lastly, the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of
proportionality. It applied the Guidelines on the Method of
Setting Fines in determining the gravity of the infringement
in a manner that was equally as formalistic and one-sided to
the detriment of the appellants as the respondents in these
proceedings had done. In addition, it failed to undertake the
simultaneous weighting of all the relevant circumstances of
the case that the principle of proportionality requires, and
instead merely examined the proportionality of the fine in
relation to discrete criteria that were considered on their
own in every case.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per
(Italy)
lodged on 3 December 2007 — Assitur Srl v Camera di
Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano

Lombardia

la

(Case C-538/07)

(2008/C 37/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

Referring court

— The Court of First Instance was wrong to conclude that the
separation of
the originally unified ‘hard haberdashery’
procedure into the ‘hard haberdashery: needles’ and ‘hard
haberdashery:
fasteners’ procedures without providing
reasons for that separation did not infringe the appellants'
rights of defence, in particular their right to a fair hearing.

— In refusing to determine whether the separation of

the
‘haberdashery’ procedure was unlawful because the infringe-
ment at issue was a single and continuing one, the Court of
First Instance contravened the principle that access to justice
must not be denied and the fundamental right to judicial
protection.

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Assitur Srl

Defendant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agri-
coltura di Milano