# C_2011347EN.01000802.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/8

---

Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission

(Case C-439/11 P)

2011/C 347/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart, A. Bailleux, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the present appeal is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the present appeal is admissible and well-founded;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, and give final judgment itself on the subject-matter of the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, and give final judgment itself on the subject-matter of the dispute;

Ziegler

Commission

| — | grant the form of order sought at first instance, and, therefore, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services market, or, in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision, or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce that fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought at first instance, and, therefore, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services market, or, in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision, or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce that fine;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the General Court made several errors in law in that it found in the judgment under appeal that the Commission was lawfully entitled to conclude, by applying its Guidelines on the concept of the effect on trade between Member States, that the infringement which the appellant was found to have committed was liable to have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court misapplied European Union (‘EU’) law, in particular Article 296 TFEU, the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, when it held that the Commission did not fail in its obligation to state reasons by relying only on the ‘very serious’ nature of the infringement in order to determine the percentage of sales in relation to the infringement used to calculate the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in accordance with Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

1

By its third ground of appeal, the company Ziegler contends that the judgment under appeal is affected by defects in its reasoning in that it does not deal with the plea alleging that the Commission lacked objective impartiality and infringes the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the fundamental right to sound administration by disregarding that plea.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims, lastly, that the judgment under appeal infringes EU law, and in particular the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, in that, while acknowledging that the Commission did not properly analyse the appellant’s financial situation, it does not call into question the fact that the Commission did not even consider the possibility of allowing the appellant to benefit from a reduction of the fine on the basis of paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, even though it reduced the fine of another undertaking penalised for the same infringement pursuant to the above-mentioned paragraph.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---