Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62007TN0447

    Case T-447/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission

    OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 31–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.2.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 37/31

    Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission

    (Case T-447/07)

    (2008/C 37/48)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Scovill Fasteners, Inc. (Clarkesville, United States) (represented by: O. Dugardyn, lawyer)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the Commission's decision of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners);

    —

    in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

    —

    order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners, by which the Commission found that the applicant's subsidiary, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by agreeing on coordinated price increases and exchanging confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases.

    In support of its application, the applicant contends that the Commission erroneously considered that the applicant forms a single economic entity with its subsidiary and that the applicant should not be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary for the subsidiary's alleged infringements.

    Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite standard that the applicant's subsidiary participated in the cartel after 1997.

    In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission:

    —

    committed manifest errors when calculating the fine,

    —

    did not take all relevant circumstances into account when assessing the duration and the gravity of the infringements; and

    —

    omitted to assess the attenuating circumstances, such as the minor role played by the applicant's subsidiary.
    Top