# C_2011080EN.01001501.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/15

---

Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-14/11 P)

2011/C 80/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment;

| — | dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

| — | require TCLT to bear the costs of these proceedings and to require the three Applicants to bear the entirety of the cots of the proceedings in first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

require TCLT to bear the costs of these proceedings and to require the three Applicants to bear the entirety of the cots of the proceedings in first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| 1. | The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment and disregarded a well established line of case law according to which the liability of each company must be assessed on its own merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment and disregarded a well established line of case law according to which the liability of each company must be assessed on its own merits.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission's treatment of certain parent companies determined the legal standard for holding other parent companies liable, even if such standard went beyond what the case law requires. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission's treatment of certain parent companies determined the legal standard for holding other parent companies liable, even if such standard went beyond what the case law requires.

| 3. | By preventing the Commission from raising arguments in response to claims of discrimination, the General Court breached the Commission's rights to an adversarial procedure and misinterpreted the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By preventing the Commission from raising arguments in response to claims of discrimination, the General Court breached the Commission's rights to an adversarial procedure and misinterpreted the duty to state reasons.

| 4. | The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment since Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd. was in an objectively different situation from Intabex and Universal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment since Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd. was in an objectively different situation from Intabex and Universal.

---