# C_2015406EN.01001901.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/19

---

Appeal brought on 18 September 2015 by Ori Martin SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10

(Case C-490/15 P)

(2015/C 406/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ori Martin SA (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| (1) | primarily: set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismissed its action in Case T-419/10 to the extent that it sought the annulment of the contested decision for unlawfully extending joint liability to the appellant for acts committed by its subsidiary SLM; set aside the judgment for infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] or, alternatively, grant the appellant fair compensation; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

primarily: set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismissed its action in Case T-419/10 to the extent that it sought the annulment of the contested decision for unlawfully extending joint liability to the appellant for acts committed by its subsidiary SLM; set aside the judgment for infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] or, alternatively, grant the appellant fair compensation;

| (2) | in the alternative: amend the judgment under appeal, giving a definitive ruling on the dispute and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reducing the fine imposed on the appellant, taking into account (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance, (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events, and (iii) the shorter period of participation in the cartel which, for SLM/ORI, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent evidence available to support allegations of such participation;
  in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in the alternative: amend the judgment under appeal, giving a definitive ruling on the dispute and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reducing the fine imposed on the appellant, taking into account (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance, (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events, and (iii) the shorter period of participation in the cartel which, for SLM/ORI, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent evidence available to support allegations of such participation;

in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

ORI raises, in essence, [five] grounds of appeal, intended to show that the General Court:

| (a) | redefined, in a way that was disproportionate and inconsistent with the evidence produced, the fine imposed on the appellant, thereby infringing Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the established principles of EU law on the subject of the proportionality of antitrust sanctions as well as the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

redefined, in a way that was disproportionate and inconsistent with the evidence produced, the fine imposed on the appellant, thereby infringing Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the established principles of EU law on the subject of the proportionality of antitrust sanctions as well as the duty to state reasons;

| (b) | infringed EU law as regards the principle of personal responsibility on which EU competition law is based, through the unwarranted extension of joint liability to the appellant, who played no part whatsoever in the alleged events; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

infringed EU law as regards the principle of personal responsibility on which EU competition law is based, through the unwarranted extension of joint liability to the appellant, who played no part whatsoever in the alleged events;

| (c) | infringed the EU legislation on the subject of the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law, in particular Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

infringed the EU legislation on the subject of the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law, in particular Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

| (d) | did not fully exercise its power of judicial review, with a manifest misgovernment of the evidence produced and a failure to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

did not fully exercise its power of judicial review, with a manifest misgovernment of the evidence produced and a failure to state reasons;

| (e) | infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the case was not dealt with within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the case was not dealt with within a reasonable time.

---