Action brought on 18 February 2009 - Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Commission

(Case T-73/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the European Commission C(2008) 6815 final relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 - Car glass), together with the grounds on which the operative part of the decision was reached, in so far as the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain was made an addressee of that decision, and draw from that all the necessary consequences as regards the amount of the fine;

in the alternative, whether or not the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain may be an addressee of the decision, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the companies belonging to the Saint-Gobain group;

order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 in Case COMP/39.125 - Car glass by which the Commission found that certain undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing contracts for the supply of car glass and by coordinating their pricing policies and supply strategies on the European market for car glass.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003¹ and of the principle that penalties are personal inasmuch as the Compagnie de Saint-Gobain was made an addressee of the contested decision in its capacity as the parent company of the company Saint-Gobain Glass France SA without having personally and directly participated in the infringement;

failure to state reasons, infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the principle that penalties are personal as the Commission did not establish that the whole of the consolidated turnover of the Saint-Gobain group could be used as a basis for the penalty;

infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of non-retroactivity in so far as the Commission applied new guidelines dating from 2006 relating to the method of setting fines² retroactively to events which took place prior to their entry into force and were fully over before that date;

infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the principle of proportionality as no previous infringements may legitimately be taken into account.

____________

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).

² - Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).