Action brought on 27 December 2006 - Arcelor and Others v Commission
(Case T-405/06)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Arcelor Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg), Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg) and Arcelor International (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
annul the Commission's decision of 8 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.907 - Steel beams - C(2006) 5342 final;
at the very least, annul Article 2 of the decision imposing on the applicants a financial penalty or reduce that penalty drastically;
order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this action, the applicants seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 ECSC (Case COMP/F/38.907 - Steel beams), concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams and relating to price-fixing, allocation of quotas and information exchange on the market for beams in the Community. In the alternative, they seek the annulment of or a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on them by the contested decision.
The applicants rely on several pleas in law in support of their action.
The first plea alleges infringement of Article 97 ECSC and misuse of powers in so far as the contested decision applies Article 65 ECSC after expiry of that treaty pursuant to Article 97 thereof.
Second, the applicants allege infringement of Regulation No 1/2003
1 and a misuse of powers in so far as the Commission bases its competence to adopt an ECSC decision on a regulation which confers on it powers only pursuant to the implementation of Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The third plea alleges breach of the rule of law and the rights of the defence in so far as the decision holds three affiliated companies responsible for a practice in which only one participated.
Furthermore, the applicants claim that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed rules of law relating to limitation.
Finally, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringed their rights of defence in so far as it was adopted more than fifteen years after the facts, on the basis of a theory for attributing responsibility which, according to the applicants, was set out for the first time by the Commission in its statement of objections of March 2006 and therefore after an excessive period of time.
____________1 - 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, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1