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 62010TN0396

    Case T-396/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission

    OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 51–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.11.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 301/51

    Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission

    (Case T-396/10)

    ()

    2010/C 301/81

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (Gozzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the contested decision.

    —

    In the alternative, annul the fine imposed or reduce the amount of the fine.

    —

    In the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine by granting the request to take account of the attenuating circumstance referred to in Section 29 of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines.

    —

    In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.

    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case. In particular, the applicant submits that the products referred to in the decision belong to three separate markets, that Zucchetti is present only on the taps market and that the Commission’s decision does not carry out a prior identification of the relevant market. The decision is also defective in terms of its assessment of the geographic extent of the market and the effects of the cartel on the operating conditions on the market.

    The applicant adds that the reconstruction of the agreements and/or concerted practices which led the Commission to find that the applicant had participated in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU solely on account of its collusive behaviour in Italy is vitiated and does not state the reasons on which the finding is based, since it totally fails to show that the applicant was aware of the unlawful conduct engaged in by the other undertakings allegedly participating in the cartel.

    Top