Action brought on 8 September 2010 - Roca Sanitario v Commission

(Case T-408/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and M. Merola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annulment in part of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of European Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in so far as they relate to Roca Sanitario;

in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on Roca Sanitario, as requested in the application, to the extent that the Court deems appropriate for the reasons set out or for such other reasons as the Court may determine;

in the further alternative, if the Court should give judgment in other actions brought by Roca France or Laufen Austria, reducing the fine imposed in the European Commission Decision of 23 June 2010 for infringements by these companies for which Roca Sanitario is jointly and severally liable, a declaration that Roca Sanitario is entitled to an equivalent reduction in the amount of the fine for which it is jointly and severally liable;

an order that the Commission should pay the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission and Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.

The applicant submits, in particular, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant was jointly and severally liable for the infringements allegedly committed by Roca France and Laufe Austria, substantially exceeding the maximum amount of the fine that may be fixed under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. ¹

It is also submitted that the contested decision disregards, without giving reasons, the considerable amount of evidence adduced, which, for the purposes of the attribution of liability and calculation of the fine, rebuts the presumption that the applicant exercised decisive influence over Roca France and Laufen Austria.

The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the rights of the defence, since it attributed liability to the applicant on the basis of facts and subjective assessments not contained in the statement of objections, and in respect of which the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to give its views.

____________

¹ - OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.