Case T-348/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission
Date: 2008-08-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), chlorine, fine, fixing of prices

C 285/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

— error

in the application of

the case-law regarding the
unlawful exercise of activities by the applicant's hierarchical
superior, since the applicant did not claim that those staff
reports were vitiated by the unlawfulness of the appoint-
ment of her hierarchical superior, but by the unlawful occu-
pation of a position which the applicant could have held
and by the personal
interest of her hierarchical superiors
(paragraph 42 of the order under appeal).

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Commu-
nities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the
European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Arkema France v
Commission

(Case T-343/08)

(2008/C 285/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: A.
Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and H. Kanellopolous, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing sales
volumes, by fixing prices, by exchanging commercially sensitive
information on prices and sales volumes and by monitoring the
execution of those anticompetitive arrangements on the market
for sodium chlorate in the European Economic Area.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law
alleging:

— an infringement of the rules concerning the responsibility of
a parent company for offences committed by a subsidiary,
inasmuch as the Commission committed errors of fact by
asserting that Elf Aquitaine had a decisive influence on the
applicant's commercial policy;

— an infringement of the applicant's rights of defence and of
the principles of proportionality, non bis in idem, equality of
treatment and of sound administration, since the basic
amount of the fine payable by the applicant was increased
by 90 % on the ground of recidivism;

— an underestimate of the value of the information provided
by the applicant pursuant
to the Leniency Notice of
2002 (1), inasmuch as the applicant should have received a
reduction of the fine of between 30 and 50 %; and

— errors of law and of fact and an infringement of the princi-
ples of sound administration, proportionality and equality of
treatment, since the Commission did not grant the applicant
a reduction of the fine on the basis of its cooperation in the
administrative procedure.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

Form of order sought

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Aragonesas
Industrias y Energía v Commission

— Annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the decision adopted
by the Commission of
the European Communities of
11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 in so far as it concerns
Arkema;

— In the alternative, annul or

reduce, on the basis of
Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on the
applicant by that decision;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the entire costs.

(Case T-348/08)

(2008/C 285/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part
of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008
in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate, by which the
Commission found that certain undertakings,
including the
applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the

Applicant: Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
(represented by: I. Forrester, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt, J. Garcia-
Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission

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)