CELEX: 62008TN0077
Language: en
Date: 2008-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-77/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission

9.5.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 116/22
            
         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission
   (Case T-77/08)
   (2008/C 116/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber sector.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the facts and erred in law in holding the applicant liable for the infringement of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish that the applicant had a decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers. Furthermore, the applicant contends that it did not form a single economic unit with DuPont Dow Elastomers.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:
   
               —
            
            
               in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the duration of the infringement was only six years and one month;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by 10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               in not granting the applicant the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %.