Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 20 January 2005 by Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB and Outokumpu Copper BCZ S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-19/05)

    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 20 January 2005 by Boliden AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB, established in Västerås (Sweden) and Outokumpu Copper BCZ S.A., established in Liège (Belguim) represented by C. Wetter and O. Rislund, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

-    annul Articles 1(a), 1 (b) and 1 (c) of the Commission's Decision of 3 September 2004 (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 - Copper Plumbing Tubes) insofar as these articles relate to the periods from 1 July 1995 until 27 August 1998 and from 10 December 1998 until 7 October 1999;

-    amend Article 2 of the contested decision, and reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

-    order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81 (1) EC by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing and market sharing in the copper plumbing tubes sector.

In support of their application the applicants claim that the Commission committed an error of law in the application of Article 81 (1) EC when concluding that the applicants participated in one single continuous infringement which lasted from 3 June 1998 until 22 March 2001. The applicants further argue that even if their infringement should be qualified as single and continuous, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by not taking into account the applicants' reduced participation during a substantial period of that infringement. The applicants also claim that the Commission erroneously considered as inapplicable to the applicants' case the rules on limitation periods and that, therefore, no fine should have been imposed for infringements that ceased prior to 22 March 1996 given that the Commission's investigation started on 22 March 2001. Finally, they claim that the Commission did not correctly apply its Leniency Notice and the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines in their regard, since the reduction of the fine granted by the Commission does not correctly reflect the applicants' co-operation. In the same context, the applicants also invoke a violation of the principle of equal treatment on the grounds that they were granted the same reduction as another participant to the infringement in question even though the applicants' cooperation went further than that of the other company.

____________