This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0090
Case T-90/10: Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Ferriere Nord SpA v European Commission
Case T-90/10: Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Ferriere Nord SpA v European Commission
Case T-90/10: Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Ferriere Nord SpA v European Commission
OJ C 113, 1.5.2010, p. 60–61
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.5.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 113/60 |
Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Ferriere Nord SpA v European Commission
(Case T-90/10)
2010/C 113/92
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant(s): Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini, avvocato, G. Donà, avvocato)
Defendant(s): European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
As a main claim , annulment, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, of the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2009 C(2009) 7492 final — as amended and supplemented by the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2009 C(2009) 9912 final, notified on 9 December 2009 — which imposed a fine of EUR 3 570 000 on the applicant following a procedure under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (COMP/37.956 — Concrete reinforcing bar, re-adoption). |
|
— |
In the alternative , partial annulment of decision C(2009) 7492 final — as amended and supplemented by decision C(2009) 9912 final — and concomitant reduction of the fine. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The application is directed against the decision of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by the decision of 8 December 2009, by which the Commission imposed a penalty for a breach of Article 65 CS on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in other actions brought against the above decision.
In particular, the applicant raises the following pleas inter alia:
|
— |
the Commission had no authority to impose a penalty for a breach of the ECSC Treaty after that treaty ceased to be in force; |
|
— |
there was no prior notification of a fresh ‘statement of objections’; |
|
— |
there was no fresh hearing before the Hearing Officer; |
|
— |
the final report of the Hearing Officer postdated the decision of 30 September 2009; |
|
— |
the decision of 30 September 2009 was adopted without the annexes mentioned in it. |
In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of the above decisions, on various grounds, which include the following:
|
— |
erroneous legal assessment of the facts (as regards the duration of participation in the cartel, the objections put forward, the basic price, the supplement for larger sizes, the limitation of output and/or sales); |
|
— |
the disproportionate amount of the fine in relation to the seriousness and duration of the infringement; |
|
— |
failure to take account of mitigating circumstances; |
|
— |
misapplication of the criteria laid down by the Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).