23.6.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/40

(Case T-142/07)

(2007/C 140/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: General Technic Sàrl (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Nosbusch, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul on the basis of Article 230 EC the decision adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators, in so far as it concerns GT;

—in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the fine imposed on it by that decision;

—order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant is seeking the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and relating to the manipulation of calls for tenders, market-sharing, price-fixing, the award of projects and sales contracts, the installation, maintenance and modernisation of machinery and the exchange of information, in so far as it concerns the applicant. In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong to find it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, a member of the cartel. It claims that the Commission was mistaken about the nature and extent of its shareholding in the share capital of its subsidiary in so far as the applicant is a purely financial company which does not carry out any trade of its own and that its shareholding in the subsidiary is a minority shareholding which does not exceed what is necessary for the protection of its financial interests. The applicant maintains also that the Commission has not stated to the requisite legal standard its reasons for finding that the applicant was involved in the cartel in question, in contrast to the personal role played by its shareholder, in his capacity as managing associate of the subsidiary.