This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62006TN0351
Case T-351/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
Case T-351/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
Case T-351/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
ĠU C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 21–21
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
ĠU C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 20–20
(BG, RO)
- Date of document:
- 05/12/2006
- Author:
- Il-Qorti tal-Prim’Istanza
- Form:
- Informazzjoni ġudizzjarja
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
27.1.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 20/21 |
Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
(Case T-351/06)
(2007/C 20/30)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Claimant: Dura Vermeer Groep NV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Groep is concerned; and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
In support of its application the claimant first submits that the Commission has breached Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the claimant's view, the Commission's analysis is incorrect with regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance on parent company liability for an alleged breach by subsidiaries. The Commission for that reason imposed an excessively strict test on the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant alleges, the Commission misrepresented the factual description of the applicable relationships within the Dura Vermeer concern. The Commission therefore failed to demonstrate that the claimant exercised a determining influence over the conduct of Vermeer Infrastructuur BV.
Second, the claimant alleges infringement of the essential procedural requirements set out in Article 253 EC and of the principle that reasons must be given.
