Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 9 April 2009 - Trelleborg Industrie v Commission

(Case T-147/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trelleborg Industrie SAS (Clermont Ferrand, France) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul in part Article 1 of the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicant and in any event at least insofar as it finds the commission of any infringement by the applicant prior to 21 June 1999;

reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 so as to correct the manifest errors in the decision;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 Final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/39406 - Marine Hoses insofar as it holds it liable for participation in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector in the EEA, which consisted of allocating tenders, fixing prices, fixing quotas, fixing sales conditions, geographic market sharing, and the exchange of sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders. Furthermore, it seeks the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, it submits that the Commission's power to impose fines for any period before 21 June 1999 is time barred under Article 25(1) of Regulation 1/2003 as the applicant argues that the Commission made manifest error in fact and law in finding that the applicant had committed a single and continuous infringement.

Second, it claims that the Commission has no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringement for the first period which had come to an end in May 1997.

Third, alternatively, the applicant argues that the Commission has unlawfully discriminated against it in treating it differently from another addressee as regards liability for a corporate predecessor and has breached the right to be heard and the obligation to give reasons.

____________