23.6.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/26

(Case T-110/07)

(2007/C 140/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented by I. Brinker, T. Loest and C. Steinle, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, annul the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear) in so far as it affects the applicant;

—in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 2(m) of the decision;

—in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its application.

First, the Commission is criticised for failing to demonstrate and prove the alleged infringements specifically and in detail. In particular, the Commission did not demonstrate and prove the effects of the alleged infringement on the common market and the EEA during the first phase of the alleged infringement up to 1999.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly assumed that there was a single continuous infringement and wrongly determined the duration of the infringement. According to the applicant, the Commission was unable to prove that the applicant had been involved in the alleged infringement after 22 April 1999. Furthermore, there was a breach of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), since, in the applicant's view, the limitation period had expired with respect to its participation in the alleged infringement during the first phase up to 1999.

Finally, the applicant complains of serious errors of law of the Commission in assessing the fine. It is submitted, for instance, in this respect that the Commission misassessed the seriousness and duration of the infringement and manifestly applied an excessive ‘deterrent multiplier’ to the applicant. In addition, the Commission wrongly found that the applicant had played a leading part and wrongly failed to take into account the applicant's cooperation with the Commission.

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, 4.1.2003, p. 1).