CELEX: 62020TN0590
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-590/20: Action brought on 25 September 2020 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission

23.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 399/42
            
         
      Action brought on 25 September 2020 — Clariant and Clariant International v Commission
      (Case T-590/20)
      (2020/C 399/58)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Clariant AG (Muttenz, Switzerland), Clariant International AG (Muttenz) (represented by: F. Montag and M. Dreher, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2020) 4817 final of 14 July 2020 (Case AT.40410 — Ethylene), in so far as it relates to the imposition of a fine amount in excess of EUR 94 405 800;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in eventu, reduce the fine in the amount of EUR 155 769 000 imposed on the applicants according to Article 2(c) of the Commission Decision C(2020) 4817 final of 14 July 2020, to a proportionate amount
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 and the principles of proportionality and sound administration by failure to exercise discretion, in so far as the Commission mechanically applied a fine increase on the grounds of repeated infringement based on a set of (alleged) standard criteria without considering the circumstances of the present case.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission mechanically applied a fine increase under Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines without considering the circumstances of the present case and failed to exercise its discretion.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, requesting the Court to reduce the amount of the fine to a proportionate level in exercising its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 31 of Regulation 1/2003.