CELEX: 62012TN0252
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-252/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Gretsch-Unitas v Commission

28.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 227/30
            
         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Gretsch-Unitas v Commission
   (Case T-252/12)
   2012/C 227/51
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Gretsch-Unitas GmbH (Ditzingen, Germany) and Gretsch-Unitas GmbH Baubeschläge (Ditzingen, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, C. Malz and S. Warken, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant’s Decision of 28 March 2012, which was notified to the applicants on 3 April 2012, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39452 — Mountings for windows and window-doors) in so far as it concerns the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First, the defendant did not provide sufficient reasons for the contested decision as regards the determination of the basic amount of the fine imposed on the applicants and thus failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, which is an essential procedural requirement.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Secondly, the defendant, in determining the basic amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, and without objective justification, treated them differently from other undertakings, and thus infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Thirdly, the defendant erred in setting the fine imposed on the applicants as it incorrectly assessed the extent of the reduction in the fine in respect of the applicants as the first undertaking which provided evidence that added significant value. The defendant also failed to explain in the manner required by law how it assessed the extent of the reduction in the fine in respect of the applicants as the first undertaking which provided evidence that added significant value
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourthly, the defendant infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in calculating the reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that it did not make allowance for the competitive advantage which Siegenia received with reference to its economic position.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifthly, the defendant’s decision is erroneous having regard to the consideration which must be given to the gravity of the infringement in setting the fine imposed on the applicants.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixthly, the defendant failed to take account, as a mitigating factor when exercising its discretion in setting the fine imposed on the applicants, of their significantly smaller degree of participation in the conduct relevant for the purposes of the law on cartels.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventhly, the defendant’s scheme of fines, as a whole, infringes the principle that punishments and penalties set should reflect individual circumstances and is therefore unlawful.