EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-259/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0259

62012TN0259

June 11, 2012
With Google you find a lot.
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

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/33

(Case T-259/12)

2012/C 227/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alban Giacomo SpA (Romano d’Ezzelino, Italy) (represented by: S. Nanni Costa, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, if necessary by having recourse to the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 261 TFEU;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-248/12 Carl Fuhr GmbH & C. KG v Commission.

The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.

1.First plea, alleging that the determination of the duration of the infringement ascribed to Alban Giacomo SpA was unlawful.

By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it participated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on Alban Giacomo SpA is unlawful, in so far as it is contrary to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence and the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality.

By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibility vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundamental principles of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia