Action brought on 5 June 2012 - Uralita v Commission

(Case T-250/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Article 1(2) of the Decision of the European Commission C(2012)1965 of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008)2626 of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 - SODIUM CHLORATE), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 231 000 on the applicant;

Article 2 of the Commission's decision C(2012)1965 of 27 March 2012 - Case COMP/38.695 - Sodium Chlorate; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two alternative pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision to impose a fine after the expiry of the limitation period contained in Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and to retain the interest accrued on this sum, was unlawful.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that it was unlawful for the Commission to withhold the amount of the fine imposed by Decision C(2012)1965 of 27 March 2012, including interest, before the fine became due.

____________

¹ - 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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)