- 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-413/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Socitrel v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0413
62010TN0413
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 317/34
(Case T-413/10)
()
2010/C 317/62
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA (São Romão de Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: F. Proença de Carvalho and T. de Faria, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission.
Form of order sought
—partially annul Article 1 and Article 2 of the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under the terms of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing Steel) with regard to the Applicant;
—reduce the fine;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested by the applicant is the same decision contested in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
The applicant submits to the Court:
(i)Serious failure to state reasons in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 of the TFEU, and breach of the principle of legitimate expectation in the application of the fine, infringing the rights of defence of the applicant when calculating the fine imposed on it.
(ii)Breach of the rights of defence of SOCITREL by virtue of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure of the European Commission, undermining the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Alternatively,
(iii)Breach of Article 101 of the TFEU and manifest error of assessment in finding that SOCITREL was not operating autonomously in the market.
(iv)The applicant also submits that the European Commission committed a manifest error by considering in the turnover, for the purposes of determining the 10 % limit of turnover applied to the calculation of fines, the combined turnover of the companies Emesa, Galycas and ITC, which did not form part of the PREVIDENTE Group at the time when the infringement was committed.
(v)Breach of the principle of proportionality, non-discrimination and legitimate expectation when fixing the fine.