EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0497
Case T-497/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) v Commission
Case T-497/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) v Commission
Case T-497/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) v Commission
IO C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 50–50
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 20/12/2007
- Author:
- Cúirt Chéadchéime
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Spáinnis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
8.3.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 64/50 |
Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) v Commission
(Case T-497/07)
(2008/C 64/81)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (Cepsa) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Pérez-Llorca Zamora, O.Armengol i Gasull and A. Pascual Morillo, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul Articles 1 to 4 of the Commission Decision [C(2007) 4441] to the extent that they declare respectively that Compañía Española de Petróleos SA has infringed Article 81 EC, impose a fine on it, order it immediately to cease the infringement and include it as an addressee of the Decision |
|
— |
Alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Compañía Española de Petróleos SA, and |
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action is directed against Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007in the Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, together with other companies, had infringed Article 81 EC by having taken part, over a certain period, in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the market for penetration bitumen, namely agreements for sharing the market and coordinating prices. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine for which the applicant and another company are jointly and severally liable.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges first that there is an error of law in attributing to the applicant the infringement committed by another company by applying the case-law on ‘economic unit’. Further the applicant considers that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by rejecting the evidence produced by the applicant in proof of the independence of the company which committed the infringement and by considering that there were many factors indicating that the latter company was not autonomous. In that context, the applicant also considers that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons by rejecting without foundation the arguments of the applicant on the independence of the company which committed the infringement.
Alternatively, in respect of the amount of the fine, the applicant complains that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration and the right of the applicant to a procedure without undue delays by not adopting the statement of objections in a reasonable time in light of the information available, infringed the principle of proportionality and made a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account that the applicant implemented a programme of compliance.
