Case T-209/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje 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.