Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62005TA0011

    Case T-11/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Ne bis in idem principle — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

    IO C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.7.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 179/29


    Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission

    (Case T-11/05) (1)

    (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

    (2010/C 179/47)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicants: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany); Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH (Amstetten, Austria); and Austria Buntmetall AG (Enzesfeld, Austria); (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

    Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Huber and G. Kimberley, Agents)

    Re:

    Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

    3.

    Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

    4.

    Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs;

    5.

    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


    Top