Case T-349/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Uralita v Commission
Date: 2008-08-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Spain, action for annulment (EU), chlorine, miscarriage of justice

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/45

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case
COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to
Aragonesas; or

— Amend Articles 1 and 2 of the decision to annul or substan-

tially to reduce the fine imposed on Aragonesas; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of
seeks partial
this application the applicant
annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 —
Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1)
EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it relates to the applicant.
Alternatively, it seeks the amendment of the Articles 1 and 2 of
the decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its
claims:

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a
manifest error of appraisal
in finding that the applicant had
participated in a cartel between late 1994 and 2000, allocating
sales volumes and fixing prices for sodium chlorate. It claims
that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the
decision is insufficient to establish to the requisite legal standard
the applicant's participation in a single continuous infringement.

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:

— wrongly assessed the gravity of the infringement with regard

to the applicant;

— wrongly applied the entry fee to the applicant;

— failed to properly assess the duration of the infringement;

and

— failed to take account of
specific to the applicant.

the mitigating circumstances

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Uralita v
Commission

(Case T-349/08)

(2008/C 285/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uralita,
I. Forrester, QC, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt,
Esteva, lawyers)

SA (Madrid,

Spain)

(represented

by:
J. Garcia-Nieto

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case
COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to
Uralita; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

seeks partial
this application the applicant
By means of
annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 —
Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1)
EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it finds that the applicant
must be held jointly and severally liable for infringement alleg-
edly committed by Aragonesas,
in which the applicant held
shares, during the period 16 December 1996 through
9 February 2000.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its
claims.

First, it submits that the Commission erred in law by imputing
the conduct of Aragonesas
to Uralita by way of parent-
subsidiary liability.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in
imputing the conduct of Aragonesas to Uralita by way of succes-
sion.

Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Matratzen Concord
v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez
(MATRATZEN CONCORD)

(Case T-351/08)

(2008/C 285/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany)
(represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)