24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/49

(Case T-640/16)

(2016/C 392/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2016, C(2016)3920, amending decision C(2009)8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA (AT.38589 — Heat Stabilisers);

—in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine and set a new date for due payment and interest (after adoption of the contested decision), and

—order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Article 25 of 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, by adopting the contested decision although the limitation period had elapsed.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266(1) TFUE and the applicant’s right of defence as the applicant was not granted the opportunity to develop its views orally.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 as it did not apply the 10 % cap to the applicant, and as it applied the cap to another infringer to the detriment of the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment as it held the applicant solely liable for a conduct for which other infringers were found to be responsible while the applicant’s liability is only derivative, and because it distributed the extra burden arising from the other infringer’s reduced liability exclusively to the detriment of the applicant.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted <span class="italic">ultra vires</span> by setting retroactively a deadline for payment for a date at which no valid legal basis for payment existed, and that the Commission failed to state reasons according to Article 296(2) TFUE as it did not explain for what reasons it deviates from its practice.