Action brought on 18 April 2007 - Areva & Others v Commission
(Case T-117/07)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: AREVA SA, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA, AREVA T&D SA (Paris, France) and AREVA T&D AG (Oberentfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schild, and J.-M. Cot, lawyers
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 24 January 2007 in that, firstly, it holds AREVA T&D SA and ALSTOM SA jointly liable for the anti-competitive practices implemented between 7 December 1992 and 8 January 2004, and, secondly, it attributes to AREVA T&D SA, AREVA T&D AG, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA and AREVA SA joint and several liability for the anti-competitive practices implemented between 9 January 2004 and 11 May 2004;
in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on AREVA T&D SA, AREVA T&D AG, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA and AREVA SA ;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the present, action the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 6762 Final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/F/38.899 - Gas Insulating Switchgear), concerning a cartel in the gas insulated switchgear projects sector entailing manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, the fixing of minimum tender prices, the allocation of quotas and of projects, and exchanges of information. In the alternative the applicants seek the reduction of the amount of the fine which was imposed on them by the contested decision.
In support of their claims, the applicants raise seven pleas in law.
The first plea in law alleges infringement by the Commission of the obligation to state reasons set out in Article 253 EC, in that the reasoning is contradictory and insufficient as regards the aspects relating, in particular, to the imputation of the anti-competitive practices, the finding that the applicants and ALSTOM SA were jointly and severally liable, and the increase in the basic amount of the fine on account of AREVA T&D SA's role as ringleader of the infringement.
In their second plea in law, the applicants criticise the Commission for having infringed Article 81 EC and, in particular, the legal rules relating to the imputation of liability for an infringement, by holding AREVA T&D SA, and AREVA T&D AG liable for the anti-competitive practices preceding their transfer by ALSTOM SA, when it had held that those companies were not independent of ALSTOM before being transferred.
The applicants' third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 81 EC in that the Commission imputed to AREVA SA and AREVA T&D HOLDING SA liability for anti-competitive practices attributed to their direct or indirect subsidiaries AREVA T&D SA and AREVA T&D AG, when, in the applicants' submission, it had not shown that AREVA SA and AREVA T&D HOLDING SA effectively controlled those subsidiaries during the infringement period.
The fourth and fifth pleas in law allege infringement of Articles 7 EC and 81 EC and relate, in particular, to the rules concerning the joint and several liability for the infringement. The applicants claim out that the Commission could not find AREVA T&D SA and ALSTOM SA jointly liable to pay the fine since they do not form an economic unit and such a joint sanction constitutes an unlawful delegation of the Commission's power to impose sanctions and also an infringement of the general principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and effective judicial protection.
In the sixth plea in law, the applicants criticise the contested decision for having misapplied the concept of ringleader and thus infringed Article 81 EC and also the Guidelines on the method of setting fines
1 and several general principles of law.
In their last plea in law, the applicants claim that the Commission made an error of assessment as regards the extent of the cooperation provided by the applicants during the investigation, in breach of Article 81 EC and the guidelines regarding cooperation set out in the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.
2