CELEX: 62015TN0095
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-95/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Printeos and Others v Commission

20.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 127/36
            
         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Printeos and Others v Commission
   (Case T-95/15)
   (2015/C 127/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Tompla Sobre Exprés, SL (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France SARL (Fleury Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckererzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann, lawyer, P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39780 — Envelopes) in that the determination of the amount of the fines (in particular the adjustment applied on the basis of point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines) is not explained in the required statement of reasons; or
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, amend Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39780 — Envelopes), (i) setting the fine imposed on TOMPLA at least 55 % below the legal ceiling (Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003) — or, failing that, a percentage which the Court deems appropriate — so as thereby to restore the balance between that fine and the fines imposed on Bong and Hamelin, and (ii) additionally reduce the fine imposed by at least 33 % — or, failing that, by a percentage which the Court deems appropriate — in order to take account of the fine imposed by the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC) in its Decision of 25 March 2013 in case 5/0316/10, Sobres de Papel; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The decision contested in the present proceedings states that the applicants infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating, from 8 October 2003 until 22 April 2008, in a single and continuous infringement covering Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom in the sector of stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes, consisting in price coordination, customer allocation and exchanges of commercially sensitive information.
   In support of its action, the applicants put forward three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons, in that it failed to justify the need to apply an adjustment of the basic amount of the fines pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, or the specific percentage of the reduction applied to each undertaking.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in the determination of the amount of the fine, by applying an adjustment of the basic amount of the fines pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination in the determination of the amount of the fine, by failing to take into account the fine previously imposed by the Spanish competition authority.