# C_2011340EN.01000901.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/9

---

Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV v European Commission

(Case C-452/11 P)

2011/C 340/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and M.A. de Jong, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, in so far as the appellants’ action was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, in so far as the appellants’ action was dismissed;

| — | annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part in so far as it relates to the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part in so far as it relates to the appellants;

1

| — | cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal the appellants rely on six pleas in law:

| | By the first plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission was not obliged to grant access to InBev’s reply to the objections. |
| --- | --- |

By the first plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission was not obliged to grant access to InBev’s reply to the objections.

By the first plea

| | By the second plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in deciding that the Commission was correct in taking the view in relation to the off-trade segment that the conduct of the undertakings concerned could be characterised as a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices. |
| --- | --- |

By the second plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in deciding that the Commission was correct in taking the view in relation to the off-trade segment that the conduct of the undertakings concerned could be characterised as a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices.

By the second plea

| | By the third plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and erred in law in the manner in which it determined the starting date of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

By the third plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and erred in law in the manner in which it determined the starting date of the infringement.

By the third plea

| | By the fourth plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to recognise that an unreasonably large fine was imposed on the appellants exclusively as a result of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure that was caused by the Commission itself. |
| --- | --- |

By the fourth plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to recognise that an unreasonably large fine was imposed on the appellants exclusively as a result of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure that was caused by the Commission itself.

By the fourth plea

| | By the fifth plea
  the appellants submit that, particularly by failing — or at least by failing sufficiently — to consider the comparison with the Belgian beer case Interbrew and Alken-Maes, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the Commission had not acted contrary to the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

By the fifth plea
  the appellants submit that, particularly by failing — or at least by failing sufficiently — to consider the comparison with the Belgian beer case Interbrew and Alken-Maes, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the Commission had not acted contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

By the fifth plea

| | By the sixth plea
  the appellants submit that the 5 % reduction in the fine granted by the General Court on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure is insufficient in view of the particularly large fine imposed on the appellants and the fact that the Commission has no justification for exceeding a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

By the sixth plea
  the appellants submit that the 5 % reduction in the fine granted by the General Court on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure is insufficient in view of the particularly large fine imposed on the appellants and the fact that the Commission has no justification for exceeding a reasonable period of time.

By the sixth plea

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market)

1

---