Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 15 Septembre 2010 - Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission

(Case T-406/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Emesa-Trefilería, SA (Arteixo, Spain) and Industrias Galyca, SA (Vitoria, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul the contested Decision insofar as it affects the applicants;

in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment 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, they seek the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on them.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

First, they claim 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 in so far as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.

Second, they submit that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a reduction of their fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice¹, since the decision relies extensively on evidence originating from Emesa.    

Finally, they contend that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, although Emesa provided decisive evidence having a bearing on the duration and gravity of the infringement.

____________

¹ - Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3