# C_2016027EN.01002301.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/23

---

Appeal brought on 17 November 2015 by Panasonic Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-82/13: Panasonic Corp. and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-608/15 P)

(2016/C 027/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Panasonic Corp. (represented by: R. Gerrits, advocaat, M. Hoskins QC, M. Gray, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, MT Picture Display Co. Ltd

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment and Order of the General Court: (i) to the extent that the Judgment found that Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) had not infringed Panasonic’s rights of defence and right to be heard in the period prior to 10 February 2003; and/or (ii) insofar as it failed to annul in whole or in part the finding at Articles 1(2)(c) and (e) of the Decision that Panasonic and MTPD participated in the infringement during the period from 1 April 2003 to 12 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment and Order of the General Court: (i) to the extent that the Judgment found that Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) had not infringed Panasonic’s rights of defence and right to be heard in the period prior to 10 February 2003; and/or (ii) insofar as it failed to annul in whole or in part the finding at Articles 1(2)(c) and (e) of the Decision that Panasonic and MTPD participated in the infringement during the period from 1 April 2003 to 12 June 2006;

| — | annul: (i) Article 1(2)(c) of the Decision insofar as it found that Panasonic participated in the CPT cartel from 15 July 1999 to 10 February 2003; and/or (ii) Articles 1(2)(c) and (e) of the Decision in respect of the period from 1 April 2003 to 12 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul: (i) Article 1(2)(c) of the Decision insofar as it found that Panasonic participated in the CPT cartel from 15 July 1999 to 10 February 2003; and/or (ii) Articles 1(2)(c) and (e) of the Decision in respect of the period from 1 April 2003 to 12 June 2006;

| — | reduce the fine imposed by Article 2(2)(f) of the Decision; and/or annul and/or further reduce the fines imposed on Panasonic and MTPD by Articles 2(2)(h) and 2(2)(i) of the Decision as appropriate, from the levels of those fines fixed by the Judgment at EUR 82 826 000 and EUR 7 530 000 respectively; further or alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed by Article 2(2)(f) of the Decision; and/or annul and/or further reduce the fines imposed on Panasonic and MTPD by Articles 2(2)(h) and 2(2)(i) of the Decision as appropriate, from the levels of those fines fixed by the Judgment at EUR 82 826 000 and EUR 7 530 000 respectively; further or alternatively

| — | remit the case to the General Court for further consideration in accordance with the law; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the General Court for further consideration in accordance with the law;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of Panasonic arising from the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of Panasonic arising from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea: The General Court incorrectly found that the Commission had discharged its burden of setting out in the statement of objections the essential elements against Panasonic, including the basis upon which it was alleged that Panasonic knew about the overall CPT cartel. The General Court erred in law by holding that it is sufficient for the Commission to set out one of the essential elements of the infringement implicitly but necessarily in the statement of objections. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: The General Court incorrectly found that the Commission had discharged its burden of setting out in the statement of objections the essential elements against Panasonic, including the basis upon which it was alleged that Panasonic knew about the overall CPT cartel. The General Court erred in law by holding that it is sufficient for the Commission to set out one of the essential elements of the infringement implicitly but necessarily in the statement of objections.

| 2. | Second plea: The General Court should afford Panasonic and MTPD the same relief as may be granted to Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’) in any appeal that it may bring in relation to the period of time for which Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable with Panasonic and MTPD. In T-104/13 Toshiba v Commission, the General Court held that any annulment or alteration of the Decision in relation to the imputation of the unlawful conduct of the joint venture MTPD to Panasonic also benefitted Toshiba. Consequently, Panasonic contends that, should Toshiba obtain an order from this Court setting aside the judgment of the General Court insofar as it did not annul the Decision and/or annul or reduce the fine in relation to the period of time for which Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable for an infringement with Panasonic and MTPD, the General Court would also have erred in not granting Panasonic and MTPD the same relief as ought to have been granted to Toshiba. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: The General Court should afford Panasonic and MTPD the same relief as may be granted to Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’) in any appeal that it may bring in relation to the period of time for which Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable with Panasonic and MTPD. In T-104/13 Toshiba v Commission, the General Court held that any annulment or alteration of the Decision in relation to the imputation of the unlawful conduct of the joint venture MTPD to Panasonic also benefitted Toshiba. Consequently, Panasonic contends that, should Toshiba obtain an order from this Court setting aside the judgment of the General Court insofar as it did not annul the Decision and/or annul or reduce the fine in relation to the period of time for which Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable for an infringement with Panasonic and MTPD, the General Court would also have erred in not granting Panasonic and MTPD the same relief as ought to have been granted to Toshiba.

---