# C_2012025EN.01004102.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/41

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Alliance One International, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-25/06: Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-593/11 P)

(2012/C 25/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 in case T-25/06 Alliance One v. Commission; and, in case the state of the proceedings so permits, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 in case T-25/06 Alliance One v. Commission; and, in case the state of the proceedings so permits,

| — | annul Article 1(1) of the Contested Decision, in so far it relates to SCC, Dimon and Alliance One; and accordingly |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(1) of the Contested Decision, in so far it relates to SCC, Dimon and Alliance One; and accordingly

| — | reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last fiscal year; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last fiscal year; and

| — | reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) as the multiplying factor is not applicable anymore since it was based on the group size; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) as the multiplying factor is not applicable anymore since it was based on the group size;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Alliance One before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Alliance One before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Alliance One seeks: (i) the annulment, in its entirety, of the Contested Judgment; and, in addition, (ii) the annulment of Article 1(1) of the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2005 in case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy, in so far it relates to Standard Commercial Corp. (‘SCC’), Dimon Inc. (‘Dimon’) and Alliance One; and accordingly (iii) a reduction of the fines imposed on Transcatab S.p.A. (‘Transcatab’) and Dimon Italia S.r.l. (‘Dimon Italia’; now Mindo) so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last fiancial year; or alternatively (iv) a reduction of the fine imposed on Trancatab and Dimon Italia (now Mindo) as the multiplying factor is not applicable; (v) in any event, to order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Alliance One before the General Court.

Alliance One submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | Firstly the General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The failure to conduct a concrete and full analysis of the relevant evidence produced by the Appellant in order to rebut the presumption of decisive influence and, consequently, to adequately substantiate its reasoning for the rejecting that evidence made the presumption of exercise of control all but rebuttable and this amounted to a breach of the principles of presumption of innocence, legality and individual liability. |
| --- | --- |

—

Firstly the General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The failure to conduct a concrete and full analysis of the relevant evidence produced by the Appellant in order to rebut the presumption of decisive influence and, consequently, to adequately substantiate its reasoning for the rejecting that evidence made the presumption of exercise of control all but rebuttable and this amounted to a breach of the principles of presumption of innocence, legality and individual liability.

| — | Secondly, the General Court, by rejecting the evidence offered by Alliance One, misapplied the general principles relating to the burden of proof and the procedural rules of evidence and, in any event, breached the Appellant's right of defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the General Court, by rejecting the evidence offered by Alliance One, misapplied the general principles relating to the burden of proof and the procedural rules of evidence and, in any event, breached the Appellant's right of defence.

---