Action brought on 12 April 2013 – Versalis v Commission

(Case T-210/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested measures and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present dispute concerns a request for the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 26 February 2013 [C(2013) 1200 final], together with the statement of objections [C(2013) 1199 final] by which the Commission had formally initiated the procedure in AT.40032 – BR/ESBR – Recidivism, with the intention of amending Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006, adopted in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, partially annulled and varied by the General Court of the European Union by judgments of 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission and Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission.

By its sole plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacked competence to reopen the proceedings against it with a view to the adoption of a new infringement decision. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s power to impose penalties on the applicant in connection with the matters covered by the procedure in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber was exhausted following the adoption of the decision of 29 November 2006 (C(2006) 5700 final), partially annulled and varied by the General Court of the European Union by judgments of 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission and Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission, currently under appeal before the Court of Justice. By reopening the procedure, the Commission intends to revise the substance of the grounds of the decision of 29 November 2006, that is to say, to undertake a new appraisal of the evidence against the applicant, which had already been established and on which the General Court had already expressed its views in the exercise of its full jurisdiction to review legality. Accordingly, the reopening of the infringement procedure, in terms of purpose and effects, is manifestly contrary to the principles of ne bis in idem, of legal certainty, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of effective judicial protection.