- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-69/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — IRO v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0069
62010TN0069
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
17.4.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/61
(Case T-69/10)
2010/C 100/90
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, lawyer, P. Tomassi, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 (‘the contested decision’);
—In the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed by the contested decision;
—Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-55/10 SP v Commission.
In particular, the applicant alleges:
—Infringement of the law and misuse of powers, in so far as the Commission adopted the contested decision by which the applicant was penalised for participating in an alleged price-fixing cartel, without examining all the supporting documents because the annexes relating to the price tables were not included;
—Infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in so far as, following the annulment by the Court of First Instance of Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision without carrying out any procedural steps, such as sending a statement of objections to the parties and/or hearing the parties, or involving the national authorities, and accordingly the entire procedure followed by the Commission was incomplete, inconsistent and unlawful and the rights of the defence of the undertakings penalised were infringed;
—Inadequate investigations and reasoning, in so far as the Commission did not correctly assess the information, which emerged during the investigation, concerning the size of the relevant market and the effects of the alleged cartel.
In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should cancel or reduce the fine imposed by the contested decision.
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).