CELEX: 62012TN0257
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-257/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission

28.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 227/32
            
         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission
   (Case T-257/12)
   2012/C 227/54
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Siegenia-Aubi KG (Wilnsdorf, Germany) and Noraa GmbH (Wilnsdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Caspary and J. van Kann, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul in part Commission Decision C(2012) 2069 final of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39452 — Mountings for windows and window-doors in so far as it concerns the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision, pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First, in its findings the defendant breached the principles of the burden of proof (Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003), the standard of proof and the obligation to state the reasons for its decision. In particular, the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficiently the existence of any alleged ‘signal effects’ on all mounting technologies and materials throughout the entire European Economic Area (EEA) of German prices for ‘turn-and-tilt’ systems, and thereby unlawfully reduced the burden of proof on the defendant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second, the defendant erred in law in assuming that the alleged collusion affected the whole of the EEA, or failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third, the defendant erred in law in assuming that the alleged infringement related to all mounting technologies and materials, and failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth, the defendant erred in law in assuming that collusion on prices occurred in 2002, and failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect. As a result the Guidelines on fines were also applied incorrectly in law, in so far as it was erroneously assumed that the infringement lasted from 1999 until 2007. Furthermore the defendant infringed Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003, because events that occurred before 2002 are time-barred.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth, the defendant erred in law in attributing to the applicants the conduct of a company in which only a minority shareholding was held, thereby infringing the rules on the attribution of the actions of subsidiaries to the parent company, as well as the obligation to state reasons.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth, in making an adjustment of the fine, the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment, proportionality, sound administration, and of the obligation to state reasons. Furthermore, the defendant acted contrary to the wording, logic and purpose of the Guidelines on fines.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh, in determining the gravity of the infringement, the defendant breached the principles of proportionality and sound administration and infringed points 20, 23, and 25 of the Guidelines on fines, as well as the obligation to state reasons.
            
         
               8.
            
            
               Eighth, in determining mitigating circumstances, the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment, point 29 of the Guidelines on fines and the obligation to state reasons. In particular the defendant failed to take into account the fact of the applicants’ non-intentional conduct and of their active cooperation.