CELEX: 62017TN0222
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-222/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission

19.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 195/34
            
         Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-222/17)
   (2017/C 195/48)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux (Anderlecht, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon them in the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the applicants payment terms, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice (1) as regards the duration of the infringement.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice as regards the infringement concerning France.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying a specific increase of 10 % in the calculation of the fine based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (2).
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not granting the applicants a reduction of 50 % in the fine pursuant to the first hyphen of point 26 of the Leniency Notice.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as well as the principle that the fine must be specific to the offender.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Court is requested to use its unlimited jurisdiction to grant the applicant payment terms for any part of the fine still due.
            
         
      (1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006, C 298, p. 17), as last amended by the Communication from the Commission on Amendments to the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2015, C 256, p. 1).
   
      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).