Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 7 September 2010 - Masco and Others v Commission

(Case T-378/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Masco Corp. (Taylor, United Stated of America), Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany), Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH (Schiltach, Germany), Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. (Wiener Neudorf, Austria), Hansgrohe SA/NV (Anderlecht, Belgium), Hansgrohe B.V. (Westknollendam, the Netherlands), Hansgrohe SARL (Antony, France), Hansgrohe Srl (Villanova d'Asti, Italy), Hüppe GmbH (Bad Zwischenahn, Germany), Hüppe Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Laxenburg, Austria), Hüppe Belgium SA/NV (Zaventem, Belgium) and Hüppe B.V. (Alblasserdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: D. Schroeder, lawyer and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul Article 1 of the Commission decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 - Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures, insofar as it finds that the applicants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice "in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector", and

order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Article 1 of Commission decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 - Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice "in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector", covering the territory of Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

The applicants put forward one plea in law in support of their application.

The applicants challenge the Commission's legal qualification of the conduct as a single complex infringement covering three different product groups, namely taps and fittings, shower enclosures and ceramic sanitary ware, instead of finding three separate infringements.

The applicants do not produce ceramic sanitary ware. The applicants submit that in finding that they participated a single complex infringement across the three product groups, including ceramic sanitary ware, the Commission committed errors of assessment of the facts and errors of law. The Commission's finding of a single complex infringement in the decision is not in line with previous Commission cases (or the jurisprudence of the Courts). Thus, the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, legal certainty and equal treatment. In particular, the facts and evidence presented in the decision do not support the Commission's conclusion that there is a single complex infringement covering three different product groups.

____________