Action brought on 13 September 2010 - Nedri Spanstaal v Commission
(Case T-391/10)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom and B. Haan, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Declare the action admissible;
annul Article 1(9) of the Commission's decision with regard to the period of time in respect of which Hit Groep was found liable, and Article 2(9) of the decision with regard to the fine imposed on Nedri;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.344 - Prestressing steel.
In support of its action, the applicant has submitted three pleas in law.
First, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003
1 and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by finding Hit Groep jointly and severally liable only for the period from 1 January 1998 to 17 January 2002. In the applicant's view, the Commission should have found Hit Groep liable for the period from 1 May 1987 to 17 January 2002 since Hit Groep had control of the applicant throughout the whole of that period.
Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of the Guidelines on setting fines,
2 of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by applying the legal maximum of the amount of the fine, that is 10% of turnover in the preceding business year, to the applicant's turnover in 2009. The legal maximum should have been applied to the applicant's turnover in 2002.
Third, the applicant alleges infringement of point 23 of the Leniency Notice
3 and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by granting the applicant only a 25% reduction of the fine, instead of 30%.