Action brought on 4 June 2012 - Versalis v Commission

(Case T-241/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant submits that the Court should:

annul the contested measure by which the Commission held that the necessary conditions were present for reopening the procedure for imposing a penalty on Versalis SpA and Eni SpA, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the European Commission of 23 April 2012 (D/2012/042050, entitled: COMP/F/38.638 - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Re-adoption) by which Versalis SpA was informed of the Commission's decision to proceed with the adoption of a new statement of objections and a new infringement decision which will impose a fine on that company, in connection with Procedure COMP/F/38.638 - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber. That letter follows on from the judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, by which the General Court annulled the part of the infringement decision concerning the charge against the applicant - and, jointly and severally with that company, against Eni - relating to the aggravating circumstance of repeat infringements, leading to a recalculation of the fine imposed.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

By its first and only plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacked competence to reopen the procedure for imposing a penalty on it with a view to the adoption of the new infringement decision. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission's power to impose penalties on Versalis SpA in connection with the subject-matter of Procedure COMP/F/38.638 - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber came to an end following the adoption of the decision of 29 November 2006 (Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final), as annulled and altered by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, at present under appeal before the Court of Justice.

____________