Action brought on 3 July 2007 - Koninklijke Grolsch v Commission
(Case T-234/07)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Koninklijke Grolsch NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to Grolsch, and in any event set aside that decision to the extent to which it is addressed to Grolsch;
set aside or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on Grolsch;
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the Commission decision of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/B-2/37.766 - Netherlands beer market), by which a fine was imposed on the applicant.
In support of its action the applicant puts forward three procedural heads of complaint. First, it argues that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy, and that this amounted to an infringement of the principle that proceedings should be conducted within a reasonable period of time. Second, Grolsch submits that its rights of defence were infringed inasmuch as it was refused access to the other parties' replies to the statement of objection. Third, it claims that the principles of sound administration, including the principles of the duty of care and of the presumption of innocence, were infringed inasmuch as the Commission did not act impartially during the investigation, failed to take account of exonerating material, and conducted the investigation in an incomplete or negligent manner.
The applicant goes on to put forward six heads of complaint in relation to the Commission's substantive findings. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 81 EC, the obligation to state reasons and the principles of sound administration in its findings with regard to, first, the avowed objective of the agreements, second, the alleged incidental allocation of clients in the catering and home-use market sectors, third, the alleged coordination of other commercial conditions, fourth, the alleged agreement and/or adjustment concerning prices and price increases in both the catering and home-use market sectors, including private-label beer, fifth, the alleged duration of the infringement and, sixth, the applicant's ostensibly direct participation in the alleged infringement.
The applicant concludes by putting forward two heads of complaint relating to the quantum of the fine imposed. It submits that, by applying a notional turnover figure which includes excise duty in applying the legally permissible maximum of 10%, the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.
1 The applicant also takes issue with the disproportionate nature of the fine imposed, in which connection it argues that the Commission failed to make allowance for the length of the proceedings and failed to have regard for the contrast with the parallel Belgian beer case.
2