Case T-521/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Areva T&D v Commission
Date: 2009-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), electric machinery, fine, liability, parent company, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice, subsidiary








C_2010051EN.01004201.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/42





Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Areva T&D v Commission
(Case T-521/09)
2010/C 51/78
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Areva T&D SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Schild and C. Simphal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns Areva T&D SA; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The purpose of this action, brought by Areva T&D SAS, is the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 EEA — Case COMP/39.129 — Power Transformers.
The applicant raises four pleas in law in support of its action for annulment.
The first plea in law concerns the infringement of the obligation to provide reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU. The applicant takes the view that the Commission has not stated reasons for the delegation of its power to impose sanctions following the imposition of sanctions jointly on Areva T&D SA and the addition of a supplementary condition to the conditions laid down by the Notice of 19 February 2002 for entitlement to immunity from fines.
By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed Article 101(1) TFEU and, specifically, the legal rules on imputability for competition law infringements. According to the applicant, the Commission could not hold Areva T&D SA liable for anti-competitive practices prior to the transfer by Alstom of Alstom T&D SA. At the time of the facts, Alstom T&D SA was not in fact an independent company, but a company controlled by its parent company, Alstom. Consequently, the Commission should have held, in accordance with the principles relating to imputability for infringements in the event of the transfer of a company, that at the time of the facts at issue, only the parent company, in the present case Alstom, could be held liable for the anti-competitive practices prior to the transfer. The applicant is also of the opinion that, by upholding the liability of Areva T&D SA, the Commission infringed the general legal principles of legal certainty and that penalties are personal and must fit the offence.
By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 101(1) TFEU and specifically the legal rules applicable to joint and several liability. The applicant maintains that the Commission could not hold Areva T&D SA and Alstom jointly liable for payment of the fine in so far as they no longer, at the date of the decision, formed an economic unit. Lastly, the applicant considers that, by finding Alstom and Areva T&D SA jointly liable, the Commission’s decision infringes two general principles of Union law, namely the principle of equal treatment and the principle of legal certainty.
By its fourth plea in law, the applicant criticises the Commission for having infringed Article 101(1) TFEU and, specifically, the rules set out in the Commission Notice of 19 February 2002 on immunity from fines and reduction of fines. (1) The applicant also claims that, by refusing Areva T&D SA entitlement to immunity, the Comission infringed the general legal principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.


(1)  OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3