Error! Reference source not found.
Action brought on 14 Septembre 2010 - ArcelorMittal España v Commission
(Case T-399/10)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ArcelorMittal España, SA (Gozón, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision insofar as they relate to ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;
in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;
and, as a further alternative, decrease the amount of the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Article 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 - Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, it seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on 6 pleas in law.
First, the applicant claims that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR") and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights insofar as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.
Second, it submits that the Commission has committed the errors in the calculation of the fine, which led to a larger fine being imposed on the applicant.
Third, it contends that the Commission has erroneously found that the applicant exercised decisive influence on Emesa and Galycas' prior to December 1997.
Fourth, it argues that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicant a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice
1, although it provided decisive evidence on the duration and gravity of the infringement and thus, fulfilled the requirements stated therein.
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has incorrectly applied the "specific increase for deterrence" provided for in paragraph point 30 of the Commission 2006 Fining Guidelines
2, resulting in an illegal 20% increase of the fine imposed on the applicant.