This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62006TN0355
Case T-355/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
Case T-355/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
Case T-355/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
ĠU C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 23–24
(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. 22–23
(BG, RO)
|
27.1.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 20/23 |
Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
(Case T-355/06)
(2007/C 20/34)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Claimant: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it finds that BAM breached Article 81 EC, a fine is imposed on BAM in that regard, BAM is enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequences, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
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 action, the claimant submits that the Commission acted contrary to Article 81 EC and to Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by concluding that the claimant had breached Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the Commission wrongly attributed to it, as the parent company, the breach allegedly committed by a subsidiary.
In the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commission incorrectly determined the amount of the fine imposed on it. The Commission imposed a fine based on a period of two years and five months during which the claimant allegedly held 100 % of the shares in BAM NBM, whereas that period in fact amounted only to one year and five months.