# C_2015138EN.01004501.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/45

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2015 by Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2014 in Case T-72/09: Pilkington Group Limited and Others v Commission

(Case C-101/15 P)

(2015/C 138/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, solicitors)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside in part the Judgment in Case T-72/09 to the extent to which it dismisses the action brought against Article 2(c) of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in part the Judgment in Case T-72/09 to the extent to which it dismisses the action brought against Article 2(c) of the Decision;

| — | reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants in Article 2(c) of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants in Article 2(c) of the Decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the Judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of point 13 of the Commission's 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) in considering that the Commission was entitled to take into account, when determining the relevant value of sales, sales made pursuant to contracts that pre-dated the infringement period and that were not re-negotiated during the infringement period. As such sales cannot have been affected by the infringement, it was not legally correct to take them into account when determining the basic amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of point 13 of the Commission's 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) in considering that the Commission was entitled to take into account, when determining the relevant value of sales, sales made pursuant to contracts that pre-dated the infringement period and that were not re-negotiated during the infringement period. As such sales cannot have been affected by the infringement, it was not legally correct to take them into account when determining the basic amount of the fine.

1

| | Second, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (2) in considering that the final amount of the fine did not exceed the statutory 10 % cap. The appropriate exchange rate to calculate the 10 % cap is not the ECB average exchange rate for the financial year preceding the year of adoption of the Decision, but the ECB exchange rate applicable on the day the Decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (2) in considering that the final amount of the fine did not exceed the statutory 10 % cap. The appropriate exchange rate to calculate the 10 % cap is not the ECB average exchange rate for the financial year preceding the year of adoption of the Decision, but the ECB exchange rate applicable on the day the Decision was adopted.

2

| | Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the rules on equal treatment and proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with the intensity required by the case law of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the rules on equal treatment and proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with the intensity required by the case law of the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 OJ C 210, p. 2

1

(2)  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 (now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), OJ L 1, p. 1

2

---