CELEX: 62019TN0545
Language: en
Date: 2019-08-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-545/19: Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

23.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 319/30
            
         
      Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission
      (Case T-545/19)
      (2019/C 319/31)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain), Global Special Steel Products, SA (Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Blanco Carol and B. Martos Stevenson, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the present action admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2019; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The present action, which dates back to a request for inability to pay submitted in February 2000 in the context of proceedings in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel, is brought against the European Commission’s decision rejecting the request of 20 December 2018 to defer payment in the light of the applicants’ financial situation.
      In support of their action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the contested decision was adopted without the applicants being given the opportunity to set out their point of view in that regard.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the rejection of the request submitted by the applicants.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law when assessing the applicants’ financial situation and their ability to pay the fine.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted the contested decision in breach of the general principle of collegiality, thereby vitiating that decision by a lack of competence.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.