This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0053
Case T-53/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
Case T-53/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
Case T-53/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 45–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 95/45 |
Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
(Case T-53/07)
(2007/C 95/93)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Trade-Stomil Sp z o. o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: F. Carlin, barrister, E. W. Batchelor, solicitor)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment of the decision, in particular Articles 1 to 4 thereof, to the extent that it applies to Trade-Stomil; or |
|
— |
annulment of Article 2 of the decision insofar as it pertains to Trade-Stomil; or |
|
— |
modification of Article 2 of the decision as it pertains to Trade-Stomil, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Trade-Stomil therein; and, in any event, |
|
— |
order that the Commission pay its own costs and Trade-Stomil's costs in connection with these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.
The applicant relies upon fourteen grounds in support of its claims. According to the applicant:
|
i) |
the Commission infringed Article 81 EC, as it allegedly failed to prove to the requisite standard that Trade-Stomil participated in the cartel; |
|
ii) |
the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in finding that the duration of Trade-Stomil's participation in the cartel amounted to three months; |
|
iii) |
the Commission is said to lack the jurisdiction which is necessary to address a decision to Trade-Stomil under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 EEA agreement; |
|
iv) |
the Commission further infringed Article 81 EC finding that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine agent of Dwory; |
|
v) |
the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in finding that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine agent of Dwory; |
|
vi) |
the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment in setting the starting point of the fine based on Dwory and Trade-Stomil's combined turnover; |
|
vii) |
the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons by fining Trade-Stomil on the basis of Trade-Stomil and Dwory's sales turnover, rather than Trade-Stomil's turnover alone; |
|
viii) |
the Commission allegedly infringed the principle of equality in calculating the starting point on Trade-Stomil, as a mere agent with no control over prices or quantities, in the same way as a supplier/producer; |
|
ix) |
the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed rules by not taking into account Trade-Stomil's passive or follow-my-leader participation in the cartel; |
|
x) |
the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed rules by failing to reduce the fine for non-implementation; |
|
xi) |
the Commission decision breached the principle of proportionality in setting the fine; |
|
xii) |
the Commission infringed the rights of defence by failing to hear Trade-Stomil as to the basis on which it proposed to assume jurisdiction extra-territorially; |
|
xiii) |
the Commission failed to establish or hear Trade-Stomil as to the intentional or negligent nature of the infringement; |
|
xiv) |
the Commission allegedly erred in calculating the fine. |