# C_2016191EN.01001001.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/10

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2016 by Orange Polska SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-486/11: Orange Polska SA v European Commission

(Case C-123/16 P)

(2016/C 191/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Orange Polska SA (represented by: D.M. Beard QC, A. Howard, Barristers, M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokat, P. Paśnik, adwokat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Judgment;

| — | annul the Decision in its entirety; alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision in its entirety; alternatively

| — | annul Article 2 of the Decision in its entirety; or in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the Decision in its entirety; or in the alternative,

| — | reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; or in the alternative

| — | remit the decision in relation to the fine to the Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the decision in relation to the fine to the Commission; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant raises three pleas in law — the first plea challenges the substantive validity of the finding of infringement in the contested Commission Decision, whereas as the latter two are directed against the level of the fine imposed by virtue of Article 2 of the Decision.

| a. | First, the Appellant contends that the General Court has committed an error of law and reasoning by failing to require the Commission to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct. |
| --- | --- |

a.

First, the Appellant contends that the General Court has committed an error of law and reasoning by failing to require the Commission to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct.

| b. | Secondly, the General court has committed a number of errors of law and/or distorted the evidence in upholding the Commission’s appraisal of the impact of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the level of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Secondly, the General court has committed a number of errors of law and/or distorted the evidence in upholding the Commission’s appraisal of the impact of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the level of the fine.

| c. | Thirdly, the General court has committed errors of law and has manifestly erred in its appreciation of the evidence in refusing to give credit for the investments made by Orange so as to reduce the fine due to mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Thirdly, the General court has committed errors of law and has manifestly erred in its appreciation of the evidence in refusing to give credit for the investments made by Orange so as to reduce the fine due to mitigating circumstances.

---