CELEX: C2006/060/94
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-34/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — Universal v Commission

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/51
            
         Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Universal v Commission
   (Case T-34/06)
   (2006/C 60/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Universal Corp. (Richmond, USA) [represented by: A. Riesenkampff, T. Reher, M. Holzhäuser, C. Swaak, M. Mollica, avocats]
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final, of 20 October 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Italy) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested Decision the Commission found that several companies, including the applicant and one of its indirect subsidiaries, infringed Article 81(1) EC by way of agreements and/or concerted practices in the Italian raw tobacco sector. On this basis, it imposed a fine on the applicant, jointly and severally with its subsidiary.
   In support of its application the applicant contends, firstly, that in the contested Decision the Commission adopted, without giving any explanation or objective justification, a diametrically opposed position to its own position in the Spanish raw tobacco case which involved the same parent/subsidiary relationship, the same time frame, the same commodity, the same buying prices and the same lack of involvement or knowledge by the applicant. On this basis the applicant considers that the Commission violated its obligation to state reasons, disregarded the principle of equal treatment and violated the applicant's legitimate expectations by imposing a fine on it for the infringement of its subsidiary.
   The applicant further argues that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard any decisive influence by the applicant on the commercial behaviour of its subsidiary. In this context, it submits that the Commission wrongly considered that requirements for reporting and for certain approvals confirm its exercise of decisive commercial influence over its subsidiary whereas this was not the case, due to the applicant's very decentralised structure and organisation.