Action brought on 15 September 2010 - Companhia Previdente v Commission

(Case T-414/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Companhia Previdente - Sociedade De Controle de Participações Financeiras, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Proença de Carvalho and J. Caimoto Duarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul in part Article 1 and Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 - Pre-stressing steel) in so far as they relate to the applicant;

Declare that any reduction in the fine imposed on Socitrel, in the context of other actions concerning infringements for which Companhia Previdente may be jointly and severally liable, automatically gives rise to an equivalent reduction in the fine for which Companhia Previdente is jointly and severally liable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the applicant is the same as that contested in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.

The applicant alleges:

(i)    Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of the principle of individual responsibility for infringements, in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of Article 23(2) of 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. ¹ A manifest error of assessment was made in the Decision, in determining that COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE was jointly and severally liable for the infringements committed by SOCITREL, and exceeding the maximum amount of fine under Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003.

(ii)    Infringement of Article 296 TFEU, since the applicant's arguments were not refuted and the presumption that COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE exercised decisive influence over SOCITREL, for the purposes of attributing joint and several liability and calculating the fine during the period between 1998 and 2002, was not rebutted in a reasoned manner, and the grounds on which it was concluded that there was a decisive influence during the previous period, between 1994 and 1998, in which the presumption did not appear to apply, were not properly set out.

Alternatively,

Infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and of the principle of proportionality, since the maximum amount of fine that could have been imposed on COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE was exceeded.

Infringement of the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination, since no account was taken of the economic context of the current crisis and the inability of COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE to pay.

____________

¹ - OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.