Asunto T-456/05: Recurso interpuesto el 30 de diciembre de 2005 — Gütermann/Comisión

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Published date: 17 March 2006
• Celex Number: C2006/060/85

11.3.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 60/45

---

Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Gütermann v Commission

(Case T-456/05)

(2006/C 60/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gütermann Aktiengesellschaft (Gutach-Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter, B. Kasten and S. Orlikowski-Wolf, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(1) of the Decision in so far as it declares that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement as regards Sweden, Norway and Finland also in the period from January 1990 up to and including December 1993;

— annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4,021 million on the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/Thread (amended by the defendant's decision of 13 October 2005). In the contested decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

In support of its application the applicant is relying on four pleas in law.

First, it alleges breach of Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003. (1) In this connection it submits that the finding as to the duration of the infringements in Article 1(1) of the contested decision is incorrect.

In its second plea in law the applicant submits that there has been an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (2) or of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. It considers that Article 2 of the contested decision infringes fundamental principles regarding the assessment of fines. In addition, it is submitted that those provisions were infringed by Article 2 of the contested decision due to misapplication of the 1996 Leniency Notice.

Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 2 of the contested decision amounts to an infringement of the principle of proportionality as insufficient regard was had to the individual position of the applicant in fixing the fine.

---

(1) Council Regulation...