27.1.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/24

(Case T-357/06)

(2007/C 20/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—set aside, in relation to the claimant, the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006, notification of which Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin received on 25 November 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final);

—in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in relation to the claimant, or in any event reduce substantially the fine imposed on the claimant by Article 2 of the decision;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant alleges, in the first place, that there was an incorrect analysis of the facts, resulting in a defective appraisal of the conduct of the road construction companies in the light of Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the suppliers of bitumen were involved in a classic and extremely serious breach of the European competition rules. It states that the five leading customers for bitumen for road construction attempted to establish a counter-balance to this cartel with the primary objective of securing for themselves collective rebates that were as favourable as possible.

The claimant also invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in regard to the determination of the level of the fine imposed. According to the claimant, the basic amount of the fine was too high and the increases imposed for non-cooperation and its ostensible role as instigator and cartel leader were unjustified.

In conclusion, the claimant submits that the Commission refused to allow it access to the reactions to the heads of complaint of all the other parties to which those heads of complaint were addressed. In the claimant's view, that course of conduct is contrary to the rights of the defence.