Help Print this page 

Document 62017TN0222

Title and reference
Case T-222/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission

OJ C 195, 19.6.2017, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Languages, formats and link to OJ
BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV
HTML html BG html ES html CS html DA html DE html ET html EL html EN html FR html HR html IT html LV html LT html HU html MT html NL html PL html PT html RO html SK html SL html FI html SV
PDF pdf BG pdf ES pdf CS pdf DA pdf DE pdf ET pdf EL pdf EN pdf FR pdf HR pdf IT pdf LV pdf LT pdf HU pdf MT pdf NL pdf PL pdf PT pdf RO pdf SK pdf SL pdf FI pdf SV
Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal
 To see if this document has been published in an e-OJ with legal value, click on the icon above (For OJs published before 1st July 2013, only the paper version has legal value).
Multilingual display
Text

19.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/34


Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission

(Case T-222/17)

(2017/C 195/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux (Anderlecht, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon them in the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE;

grant the applicants payment terms, and

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice (1) as regards the duration of the infringement.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice as regards the infringement concerning France.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying a specific increase of 10 % in the calculation of the fine based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (2).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not granting the applicants a reduction of 50 % in the fine pursuant to the first hyphen of point 26 of the Leniency Notice.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as well as the principle that the fine must be specific to the offender.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Court is requested to use its unlimited jurisdiction to grant the applicant payment terms for any part of the fine still due.


(1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006, C 298, p. 17), as last amended by the Communication from the Commission on Amendments to the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2015, C 256, p. 1).

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).


Top