This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/082/66
Case T-21/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-21/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-21/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
OB C 82, 2.4.2005, p. 36–36
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
2.4.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/36 |
Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-21/05)
(2005/C 82/66)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by I. S. Forrester, Barrister and A. P. Schulz and A. Komninos, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Articles 1(f) and 2(d) of the decision to the extent that a fine is imposed upon Halcor; |
|
— |
in the alternative, impose such lower amount as may appear appropriate to the Court in the exercise of its unlimited discretion pursuant to Article 229 EC; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests the fine imposed on it by the Commission's Decision of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81(1) EC in Case Comp/E-1/38-069 finding three separate infringements in the copper plumbing tube sector.
In support of it application, the applicant submits in the first place that its conduct did not deserve a fine. According to the applicant, its conduct did not involve behaviour worthy of a fine under Article 81 EC, in that it was subject to coercion from the other addressees of the decision and in that its participation in the cartel, as an export- and growth-oriented undertaking, was reluctant and passive.
The applicant also submits that the starting point of its fine was manifestly erroneously set and infringes the principle of equal treatment. The applicant states that, whereas the decision accuses other addressees of engaging in three separate infringements, the applicant is accused of engaging in only one while the basic amount of the fine was calculated in the same manner for all addressees. The applicant also claims that it did not reinforce the arrangements and that the geographical scope of the infringement in the decision wrongly included Greece.
The applicant furthermore submits that the increase for duration constitutes a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law.
Finally, the applicant claims that the fine imposed on it was disproportionate by comparison to the fines imposed on the other addressees of the decision and in the light of the applicant's particular circumstances. The applicant refers in this respect to its voluntarily termination of its attendance at the meetings in 1999, two years before the Commission heard allegations about the cartel, to the short duration of its attendance at the meetings, to its passive presence and to the fact that it furnished the Commission with complete documentation on which the statement of objections and the decision were based.