Action brought on 3 June 2008 - Ziegler v Commission

(Case T-199/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the European Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEE Agreement (Case COMP/38.453 - International Removal Services), which imposes a fine of EUR 9 200 000.0 on the applicant;

in the alternative, cancel the fine;

in the further alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine;

in any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.453 - International Removal Services, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement by fixing prices in Belgium for international removal services, by sharing part of that market and by rigging the procedure under invitations to tender.

In support of its allegations, the applicant claims that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and of law in the definition of the market in question and in the evaluation of its size and of the market shares of each of the companies in question.

The applicant relies, in addition, on pleas in law alleging breach of the duty to state the reasons for the decision, of the rights of the defence, of the right of access to the file, of the right to fair procedure and of the general principle of sound administration.

So far as concerns the fine imposed and its amount, the applicant claims that:

- the Commission did not show that the practices in questions had appreciably affected trade between the Member States;

- the amount of the find is disproportionate in relation to the effective extent of the practices and their actual effect on the market; and

- the practice of bogus quotes was known and accepted by the Commission for a long time; the lack of any reaction by the Commission led the applicant to believe that the practice was lawful.

Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not take into account, as mitigating circumstances, that the concerted practice ceased long ago so far as the applicant was concerned and that bogus quotes were a response to market demand and not a cartel or concerted practice. The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of equal treatment.

____________