This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0045
Case T-45/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission
Case T-45/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission
Case T-45/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission
OJ C 82, 14.4.2007, p. 49–50
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/49 |
Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission
(Case T-45/07)
(2007/C 82/103)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as far as Unipetrol is concerned; |
|
— |
otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and |
|
— |
order the Commission to bear the costs of 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.
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:
|
— |
committed an error of appreciation by rejecting the evidence that the applicant's holding of all the shares of the company Kaučuk was of a purely financial nature or, alternatively, committed a manifest error of appreciation by rejecting evidence which demonstrated that Kaučuk acted on the market as an autonomous entity, without any intervention by the applicant in Kaučuk's sales and marketing policy concerning emulsion styrene butadiene rubber; and |
|
— |
erred in law by imputing the same conduct twice to different entities, i.e. to Kaučuk and to Kaučuk's shareholder, the applicant. |
The rest of the pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-44/07, Kaučuk v Commission.