Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 31 December 2008 - Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission

(Case T-587/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: B. Meyring, lawyer and E. Verghese, solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.188 - Bananas insofar as it pertains to it;

alternatively, to substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant pursuant to Article 2c of that decision;

alternatively, to annul Articles 1 and 3 of that decision so far as they pertain to it;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of the Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188 - Bananas) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC which held it jointly and severally liable for the conduct of Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellscaft Weichert & Co. The Commission held that Weichert had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in a concerted practice of coordination of quotation prices for bananas imported to the eight Member States of the Northern European region of the Community. Alternatively, it seeks the amendment of Article 2(c) of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.

In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward eight pleas, presented in four parts.

In the first part, the applicant puts forward the pleas in support of its claim for annulment of the decision to hold it jointly and severally liable for the conduct of Weichert.

First, it submits that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003¹ in finding the applicant jointly and severally liable for Weichert's conduct on the basis of a distribution agreement and its indirect interest in Weichert as a limited partner (Kommanditist), neither of which (alone or in combination) gave the applicant decisive influence over Weichert.

Second, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed Article 253 EC by failing to provide reasons for attributing liability to the applicant, a company that had no direct relationship with Weichert.

Third, it contends that the Commission violated the applicant's right of defence by refusing to disclose relevant evidence.

The secondary and alternative pleas are put forward by the applicant in support of its claim of annulment of the contested decision in so far as it relates to both the applicant and Weichert. In this part of its application, the applicant raises fourth and fifth plea.

The fourth plea relates to a misapplication of Article 81 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission concluded that Weichert had engaged in a concerted practice with the object of restricting competition.

The fifth plea relates to a breach of the applicant's rights of defence in that it was not granted the right to be heard as a result of a fundamental shift in the Commission's case between the statement of objections and the decision.

In the third part of its application (also in the alternative), the applicant puts forward the precautionary pleas in support of its claim seeking the reduction of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicant and Weichert. This part comprises sixth and seventh pleas.

By its sixth plea, the applicant argues that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in determining the level of the fine by failing to properly assess gravity.

The seventh plea relates to a violation of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and of legitimate expectations by the reason of the fact that the Commission failed to take account of Weichert's cooperation in the investigation.

The fourth part of the application seeks the annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of the decision in respect of the applicant on the basis of the eight pleas stating that those Articles involve a misapplication of Article 81 EC, a violation of Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 and a violation of Article 253 EC.

____________

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 L 1, p.1