CELEX: 62012TN0438
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-438/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

1.12.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 373/11
            
         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
   (Case T-438/12)
   2012/C 373/17
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;
            
         
               —
            
            
               require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission rejecting the request submitted by the applicant to the Commission for inability to pay and/or deferred payment with an exemption from providing a bank guarantee.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the applicant’s ability to pay in order to discharge the fine.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the ability to pay of the applicant’s shareholders.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as, with regard to other companies in the sector, the Commission recognised that they were unable to pay, reduced the amount of the fine or exempted them from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First, the Commission failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity to make its point of view known.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second, the Commission exceeded its powers, by breaching the principle of collegiality.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Lastly, the Commission disregarded the obligation to state the reasons on which acts are based.