Action brought on 19 February 2010 - Feralpi Holding SpA v European Commission
(Case T-70/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Feralpi Holding SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, avvocato, I. Perego, avvocato)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Annulment of the contested decision.
Annulment or reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision.
An order that the defendant pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Feralpi Holding raises the following pleas in law:
Breach of the principle of collegiality, in so far as the Commission did not submit to the College of Commissioners the full text of the contested decision including all the necessary matters of fact and law.
Erroneous selection of legal basis. It must be observed, in that regard, that the Commission could not base the contested decision alleging a breach of Article 65 CS on Regulation 1/2003,
1 once the ECSC Treaty ceased to be in force.
Breach of the rights of the defence. It is observed on this point that the Commission did not send Feralpi Holding a statement of objections and did not place in a position it to exercise its rights of defence. Moreover, the Commission imposed inappropriate terms on Feralpi Holding and obstructed its right of access.
Breach of the criteria for imputation of the infringement. According to the applicant, the Commission erroneously imputed the infringement to Feralpi Holding, without taking account of changes to the structure of the company made subsequently.
It is argued, further, that in not taking account of the interchangeability of reinforcing bars and other manufactured articles in the steel industry, such as beams and wire mesh, the Commission erroneously defined the relevant market and denied the Community dimension of the relevant geographical market without reason.
It is also pointed out that the Commission classified the conduct analysed in the decision as a single, complex and continuing infringement of Community competition rules, alleging that Feralpi Holding participated in that infringement, thus breaching Article 65 CS and making an error in the assessment of the facts.
Finally, the applicant states that the defendant erroneously fixed the amount of the fine.
____________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).