11.3.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/50

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Alliance One International v Commission

(Case T-25/06)

(2006/C 60/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance One International, Inc. (Danville, USA) [represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—	Annul Article 1.1(a) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final, of 20 October 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Italy) insofar as it relates to SCC, Dimon Inc. and Alliance One;

—	accordingly reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the latest financial year;

—	alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia- Mindo as the multiplying factor is not applicable;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested Decision the Commission found that several companies, including the applicant and its subsidiaries, Transcatab and Dimon Italia, later renamed Mindo, infringed Article 81(1) EC by way of agreements and/or concerted practices in the Italian raw tobacco sector.

The applicant requests the partial annulment of this Decision arguing, firstly, that by holding it jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by its subsidiaries, the Commission breached the rules regulating responsibility of parent companies. The applicant contests in this context the arguments and the evidence cited by the Commission in support of its finding.

The applicant also considers that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by imposing fines which exceed 10 % of the total turnover of its subsidiaries.

Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission should not have applied a multiplying factor to its subsidiaries as this was not justified on the basis of the parties' turnovers and the Commission's decisional practice. It further argues that the multiplying factor applied to it is higher than that applied to another undertaking leading to an evident violation of proportionality and lack of reasoning. The applicant also submits that the reasoning for the application of a multiplying factor to Mindo is inconsistent as it applies different criteria to determine the same fine.

(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 L 1, 04/01/2003 p. 1.