# C_2015381EN.01002501.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/25

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-398/10 Fapricela v Commission

(Case C-510/15 P)

(2015/C 381/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, advogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| (i) | adjust the volume of sales taken into account in the calculation of the fine; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

adjust the volume of sales taken into account in the calculation of the fine;

| (ii) | set aside the judgment under appeal, in part, in so far as it relates to:






  — | the volume of sales to be taken into account; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

set aside the judgment under appeal, in part, in so far as it relates to:

—

the volume of sales to be taken into account;

| — | the burden of proof relating to the duration of the participation in the cartel; |
| --- | --- |

—

the burden of proof relating to the duration of the participation in the cartel;

| — | the attribution of a greater degree of gravity of the infringement compared with Fundia; |
| --- | --- |

—

the attribution of a greater degree of gravity of the infringement compared with Fundia;

| — | the allocation of an excessive additional amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

the allocation of an excessive additional amount;

| (iii) | and accordingly, adjust the amount of the fine, specifically by:






  — | adjusting the volume of sales; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

and accordingly, adjust the amount of the fine, specifically by:

—

adjusting the volume of sales;

| — | adjusting the duration of the infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

adjusting the duration of the infringement;

| — | adjusting the reference year for calculating the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

adjusting the reference year for calculating the fine;

| — | adjusting the degree of gravity of the infringement, by attributing a degree of gravity of 16 % (equal to that attributed to Fundia); and |
| --- | --- |

—

adjusting the degree of gravity of the infringement, by attributing a degree of gravity of 16 % (equal to that attributed to Fundia); and

| — | adjusting the additional amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

adjusting the additional amount;

| (iv) | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| a) | The volume of sales, taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the penalty and upheld by the General Court, is tainted by clear errors which need to be adjusted. |
| --- | --- |

a)

The volume of sales, taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the penalty and upheld by the General Court, is tainted by clear errors which need to be adjusted.

| b) | The General Court improperly allocated the burden of proof and, in that respect, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence in the examination of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

b)

The General Court improperly allocated the burden of proof and, in that respect, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence in the examination of the facts.

| c) | The General Court did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons and infringed the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of the penalty, resulting in a finding of an excessive degree of gravity of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

c)

The General Court did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons and infringed the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of the penalty, resulting in a finding of an excessive degree of gravity of the infringement.

| d) | The General Court infringed the principle of proportionality in its determination of the additional amount for the purpose of deterrence, which affected, inter alia, the proportionality of the penalty. |
| --- | --- |

d)

The General Court infringed the principle of proportionality in its determination of the additional amount for the purpose of deterrence, which affected, inter alia, the proportionality of the penalty.

---