Case T-210/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission
Date: 2008-06-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, fixing of prices, invitation to tender, market-sharing agreement, provision of services, restriction on competition

C 197/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Stichting Administratie-
kantoor Portielje v Commission

(Case T-209/08)

(2008/C 197/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (Rotterdam,
Netherlands) (represented by: D. Van hove, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March
2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case
COMP/38.543 — International removal services), notified to
the applicant on 25 March 2008, in so far as it is addressed
to the applicant;

— in the alternative, annul Article 2(e) of the Decision, in so
far as it is addressed to the applicant, in accordance with the
fourth and/or fifth plea in law, and reduce the fine imposed
under Article 2 accordingly,
in so far as it concerns the
applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the Decision
infringes Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation
No 1/2003 (1), as the Commission failed properly to establish
that the applicant is an undertaking within the meaning of
those provisions.

By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision
infringes Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation
No 1/2003, as the Commission wrongly, in light of the facts,
attributed Gosselin's conduct to the applicant.

By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision
infringes Article 81 EC. In the first branch of this plea, the
applicant charges the Commission with having failed properly
to establish that
the conduct of which Gosselin could be
accused is to be regarded as a significant restriction of competi-
tion for the purposes of Article 81 EC. In the second branch,
the applicant charges the Commission with having failed prop-
erly to establish that the agreement to which Gosselin was a
party could have an appreciable effect on trade between the
Member States.

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision
infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 15(2) of
Regulation No 17/62 (2) and the Guidelines on the method of
setting fines (3). Those provisions were contravened by the

finding as to the gravity of the infringement, the finding as to
the value of sales with regard to the calculation of the basic
amount of the fine imposed on Gosselin and, finally, by the
refusal to take account of mitigating circumstances with respect
to Gosselin in the calculation of the fine.

Finally, by its fifth plea in law, the applicant submits that there
was a breach of the principle of equal treatment, in particular,
in the determination of the gravity of the infringement and the
value of sales, factors which were taken into account in the
calculation of the fine.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962; First Regulation
implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ, English Special
Edition 1959-62, p. 87).

(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Text with EEA relevance)
(OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Verhuizingen Coppens v
Commission

(Case T-210/08)

(2008/C 197/53)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Verhuizingen Coppens NV (Bierbeek, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: J. Stuyck and I. Buelens, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March
2008 in Case COMP/38.543 so far as concerns the appli-
cant;

— annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March
2008 in Case COMP/38.543 so far as concerns the appli-
cant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine and set it at an amount
not exceeding 10 % of the applicant's turnover on the rele-
vant market for international removal services;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant's

costs.

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/31

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's first two pleas in law seek the annulment of the
Commission decision of 11 March 2008 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 — Interna-
tional removal services).

The applicant submits, first, that there is an infringement of
Article 81(1) EC. The applicant was sanctioned for participation
in a complex cartel even though, according to the Commission's
file, the applicant differed from the other participants in that it
was found only to have participated in a small part of the
alleged cartel. Furthermore, the applicant's alleged participation
in the cartel was shorter than was found by the Commission,
and the Commission failed to take into account the relative
weight of the applicant's participation in the cartel.

— annul Article 2 of

the Decision in so far as a fine of

EUR 395 000 is thereby imposed on the applicant;

— should the Court take the view that it is appropriate that a
fine be imposed on the applicant,
its
unlimited jurisdiction under Article 229 EC and Article 31
of Regulation No 1/2003, fix a fine which is significantly
lower than that determined by the Commission;

in the exercise of

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Second, the applicant submits that there is an infringement of
Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1),
since the
Commission incorrectly established both the duration and the
continuing nature of the infringement.

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding
under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 — International
removal services).

In the alternative, the applicant seeks an exemption from the
fine imposed or at least a drastic reduction in its amount on the
ground that the basic amount of the fine was wrongly estab-
lished and calculated and there was a manifest breach of the
principle of proportionality when setting the fine.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Putters International v
Commission

(Case T-211/08)

(2008/C 197/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a
manifest error of appraisal
in finding that the applicant had
participated in a complex and systematic cartel designed,
directly and indirectly, to fix the prices of international removal
services in Belgium, to share part of the market and to manipu-
late the procedure for the submission of tenders, even though
the applicant was merely a party to practices relating to
commissions and cover quotes, and even that on a very sporadic
basis.

Second, the applicant argues that there has been an infringe-
ment of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment
by reason of the fact that the Commission, in its calculation of
the basic amount of the fine, took into account the total turn-
over for international removal services, without regard for the
number and nature of the breaches committed by the applicant
and the impact which these had on the relevant market.

Third, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that,
in calculating the fine, the Commission, without regard for the
parties' respective roles in the cartel and the nature of the prac-
tices in which they engaged, did not differentiate between the
parties but applied the same percentage to all the parties in
respect of
the breach and the extra amount
intended to serve as a deterrent.

the gravity of

Parties

Applicant: Putters International NV (Cargovil, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: K. Platteau, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Fourth, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that
the Commission imposed the maximum authorised fine on a
participant with such a limited role as the applicant.

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1 of the Decision to the extent to which that
provision states that the applicant breached Article 81(1) EC
in that it and other undertakings directly and indirectly fixed
the prices for international removal services in Belgium,
shared part of the market and manipulated the procedure
for the submission of tenders;

Fifth, and finally, the applicant submits that there has been an
infringement by the Commission of the principles of the protec-
tion of
legitimate expectations and equal treatment, together
with misappraisal, inasmuch as it failed to establish any miti-
gating circumstances in the applicant's case.