Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

6.11.

2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/53

Action brought on 14 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal Fourth, it argues that the Commission has illegally refused to
España v Commission grant the applicant a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of
the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), although it provided decisive
(Case T-399/10) evidence on the duration and gravity of the infringement and
thus, fulfilled the requirements stated therein.

(2010/C 301/84)
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has
Language of the case: English incorrectly applied the ‘specific increase for deterrence’
provided for in paragraph point 30 of the Commission 2006
Fining Guidelines (2), resulting in an illegal 20 % increase of the
fine imposed on the applicant.
Parties
Applicant: ArcelorMittal España, SA (Gozón, Spain) (represented
by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)
(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines
in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Defendant: European Commission Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2

Form of order sought


— annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision insofar as they
relate to ArcelorMittal España, S.A.; Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch
— Belgium v Commission

— in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal (Case T-402/10)


España, S.A.;
(2010/C 301/85)
— and, as a further alternative, decrease the amount of the fine
imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A. Language of the case: Dutch

Pleas in law and main arguments Parties


By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment Applicant: Villeroy & Boch — Belgium (Brussels, Belgium)
of Article 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)
final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing
steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants,
together with other undertakings had infringed Article 101 Defendant: European Commission
TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing
agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel
sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels.
Furthermore, it seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine Form of order sought
imposed on it.
— annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns Villeroy
& Boch Belgium N.V./S.A;
In support of the action, the applicant relies on 6 pleas in law.

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;


First, the applicant claims that the Commission has violated the and also
fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in
Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and Article — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights insofar as the fine was
imposed by an administrative authority which holds simul­
taneously powers of investigation and sanction.
Pleas in law and main arguments

Second, it submits that the Commission has committed the The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission
errors in the calculation of the fine, which led to a larger fine Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092
being imposed on the applicant. — Bathroom fixtures and fittings, relating to an infringement of
Article 101(1) TFEU on the market for taps, shower cabins and
ceramic products.
Third, it contends that the Commission has erroneously found
that the applicant exercised decisive influence on Emesa and
Galycas’ prior to December 1997. The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its action: