CELEX: 62006TN0378
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-378/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — IMI and Others v Commission

27.1.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 20/30
            
         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — IMI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-378/06)
   (2007/C 20/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicants: IMI plc (Birmingham, United Kingdom), IMI Kynoch Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom), Yorkshire Fittings Limited (Leeds, United Kingdom), VSH Italia Srl (Bregnano, Italy), Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle St. Mesmin, France), and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Articles 2(b)1. and 2(b)2. of the decision of the Commission of 20 September 2006 as amended by the decision of the Commission of 29 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings — C(2006) 4180 final);
            
         
               —
            
            
               alternatively reduce the fines imposed on the applicants; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission has violated the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination as the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision is excessive in terms of the size of the applicants as well as of the relevant market when compared to the Commission's approach in its previous decisions. By including sales of press fittings in the size of the relevant market for the purpose of assessing the gravity of the infringement, the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicants further submit that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that the applicants did not provide the evidence of the link between the UK and pan-European arrangements. The Commission provided an inadequate statement of reasons in that regard. Furthermore, by refusing to grant the applicants a reduction in their fines for their cooperation outside the Leniency Notice (1) for providing evidence of a link between the UK and the pan-European cartel, while granting the company FRA.BO a reduction in its fine on the same basis for providing evidence of post-inspection continuation, the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment.
   Moreover, the applicants contend that the Commission breached Article 253 EC as the contested decision does not provide any statement of reasons for imposing an additional amount of EUR 2.04 million on the applicants Aquatis France and Simplex Amaturen + Fittings.
   Finally, the applicants allege that, by imposing a separate fine upon Aquatis France and Simplex Amaturen + Fittings in addition to the fine already imposed on each of their predecessors and current parent companies, the Commission breached the principle ‘non bis in idem’ according to which no one can be condemned twice for the same offence.
   
      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)