Case T-137/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
Date: 2015-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, fine, interest, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2015190EN.01001502.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/15






Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
(Case T-137/15)
(2015/C 190/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl (Corsico, Italy); and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Camia, and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible;










—


annul the contested decision insofar as it imposes default interest of EUR 1 8 59  949,04;










—


in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the default interest; and;










—


order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea, and in the alternative, in seven other pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires.






—


The applicants contend that there is no legal basis to impose default interest when the fine was paid within the required time-frame set in the decision imposing the fine.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging absence or inadequacy of the reasons stated in the contested decision.






—


The applicants contend that the contested decision provides neither the factual nor the legal basis for the application of default interest in the present case.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.






—


The applicants contend that the application of default interest is disproportionate in view of the aim pursued by the default interest.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.






—


The applicants contend that the Commission imposes default interest of 6 % in the present case whilst when it reimbursed part of the fine to the applicants it paid back interest of 1,06 %.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.






—


The applicants contend that they could not have anticipated, on the basis of the decision imposing the fine and of the delegated Regulation, the imposition of default interest in the present situation. They furthermore state, that they could have legitimately expected that the Commission would not have applied default interest to the present situation.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the right of effective judicial protection.






—


The applicants contend that the contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU insofar as it pre-empts its effet utile and it infringes the right of effective judicial protection since by asserting their fundamental right to seek judicial redress, the applicants now face the imposition of a manifestly disproportionate interest rate.














7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment.






—


The applicants contend that the application of default interest in the present case constitute an unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission.














8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.






—


The applicants contend that the imposition of default interest on the applicants results in an outcome that totally deviates from the objectives behind conferring the Commission with delegated powers to set default interest.