Case T-251/12: Action brought on 6 June 2012 — EGL and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, carriage of goods, export (EU), fine, large business, price agreement








C_2012227EN.01002901.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/29





Action brought on 6 June 2012 — EGL and Others v Commission
(Case T-251/12)
2012/C 227/50
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, United States), CEVA Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom), CEVA Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC (Queen's Counsel), S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 — Freight Forwarding, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, insofar as the applicants were found to have been involved in two infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU, consisting of the so-called New Export System (‘NES’) arrangement and the Currency Adjustment Factor (‘CAF’) arrangement;










—


Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of making the application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to define the relevant market affected by the NES and CAF arrangements and has therefore breached the essential requirements of legal certainty. As such, it has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish that the NES arrangement had an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States. As such, it has erred in law and/or in its assessment of the facts in finding such an effect.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has imposed a fine in relation to the NES arrangement when it had no authority to do so as a consequence of Council Regulation (EEC) No 141/62 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 (2). To this extent the contested decision is vitiated by lack of standing and/or an error of law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant, having erroneously awarded Deutsche Post immunity in respect of the CAF arrangement, has failed properly to recognise the intrinsic value of the evidence provided by the applicants in their immunity/leniency application to the Commission’s case in relation to the CAF arrangement.






(1)  Regulation No 141 of the Council exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ 1962 124, p. 2751)

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector (OJ 1987 L 374, p. 1)