Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62017TN0466

Case T-466/17: Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Printeos and Others v Commission

OJ C 318, 25.9.2017, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/16

Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-466/17)

(2017/C 318/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury Mérogis, France) and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes);

—

in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the amount of the fine imposed in Article 1 of the contested decision, and as a consequence (i) reduce the basic amount of the fine by 95,3671 % pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines and (ii) reduce, additionally, the amount of the fine, after deductions for leniency and settlement, by at least 33 %;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 13 December 2016 (Case T-95/15, Printeos v Commission), the General Court annulled Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014, in Case AT.39780, which imposed on the applicants a fine of EUR 4 729 000.

The contested decision contains additional information on the methodology which was applied and the facts taken into account by the Commission when setting and adjusting the basic amount of the fines in the 2014 Decision and when imposing a fine of the same amount as that imposed under the 2014 Decision.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and non bis in idem.

—

The applicants claim in this regard that the contested decision amends the 2014 Decision, despite its being final, with the sole exception of Article 2(1)(e), which was annulled by the General Court, and that it imposes again the same fine as that already imposed by the 2014 Decision and annulled by the General Court.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of treatment in the setting of the amount of the fine.

—

The applicants claim in this respect that the contested decision makes exceptional adjustments to the basic amounts of the fines pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines, which result in discrimination detrimental to the applicants.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination in the setting of the amount of the fine.

—

The applicants claim in this respect that the contested decision does not take into account the fine already imposed by the Autoridad Española de la Competencia (Spanish Competition Authority) on 25 March 2013 for anti-competitive practices in the paper envelopes sector, or take account of the fact that the applicants are the only companies amongst those fined by the Commission which were also fined by a national competition authority.
Top