Action brought on 4 June 2008 - Putters International v Commission

(Case T-211/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Putters International NV (Cargovil, Belgium) (represented by: K. Platteau, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Article 1 of the Decision to the extent to which that provision states that the applicant breached Article 81(1) EC in that it and other undertakings directly and indirectly fixed the prices for international removal services in Belgium, shared part of the market and manipulated the procedure for the submission of tenders;

annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as a fine of EUR 395 000 is thereby imposed on the applicant;

should the Court take the view that it is appropriate that a fine be imposed on the applicant, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 229 EC     and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, fix a fine which is significantly lower than that determined by the Commission;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 - International removal services).

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in finding that the applicant had participated in a complex and systematic cartel designed, directly and indirectly, to fix the prices of international removal services in Belgium, to share part of the market and to manipulate the procedure for the submission of tenders, even though the applicant was merely a party to practices relating to commissions and cover quotes, and even that on a very sporadic basis.

Second, the applicant argues that there has been an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission, in its calculation of the basic amount of the fine, took into account the total turnover for international removal services, without regard for the number and nature of the breaches committed by the applicant and the impact which these had on the relevant market.

Third, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that, in calculating the fine, the Commission, without regard for the parties' respective roles in the cartel and the nature of the practices in which they engaged, did not differentiate between the parties but applied the same percentage to all the parties in respect of the gravity of the breach and the extra amount intended to serve as a deterrent.

Fourth, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission imposed the maximum authorised fine on a participant with such a limited role as the applicant.

Fifth, and finally, the applicant submits that there has been an infringement by the Commission of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, together with misappraisal, inasmuch as it failed to establish any mitigating circumstances in the applicant's case.

____________