Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-145/07 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, July 07, 2007

• Resolution Date: July 07, 2007
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-145/07

Action brought on 7 May 2007 - OTIS and Others v Commission

(Case T-145/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Otis SA (Dilbeek, Belgium), Otis GmbH & Co. OHG (Berlin, Germany), Otis BV (Amersfoort, The Netherlands) and Otis Elevator Co. (Farmington, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler, lawyer, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Otis pursuant to the decision;

order the Commission to pay Otis' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 - PO/Elevators and Escalators), on the basis of which the applicants, among other undertakings were held liable for participating in four single, complex and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) EC through the sharing of markets by virtue of agreeing and/or concerting to allocate tenders and contracts for the sale, installation, service and modernisation of elevators and escalators.

In support of their application, the applicants invoke the following nine pleas in law without contesting the factual findings in the contested decision.

The Commission misapplied the relevant legal test when holding Otis Elevator Company liable for the conduct of the local entities as Otis Elevator Company did not exercise decisive influence over the day-to-day commercial conduct of these local affiliates and could not have been aware of their infringing conduct.

The Commission misapplied the fining guidelines and violated the proportionality principle:

when increasing the fine for deterrence based on the entire group's turnover; and

when determining the starting amount relating to Germany, as the Commission...