# C_2018427EN.01002301.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/23

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by LS Cable & System Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-439/14: LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case C-596/18 P)

(2018/C 427/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LS Cable & System Ltd (represented by: S. Spinks, S. Kinsella, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment;

| — | rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision (1) in so far as it concerns appellant and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision (1) in so far as it concerns appellant and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on appellant;

| — | should the Court of Justice not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling; |
| --- | --- |

—

should the Court of Justice not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The contested judgment erred in law in manifestly distorting the clear sense of the evidence regarding appellant’s bids for EEA projects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The contested judgment erred in law in manifestly distorting the clear sense of the evidence regarding appellant’s bids for EEA projects.

| 2. | The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant adhered to the home territory agreement resulting from its representative’s attendance at a meeting and that, therefore, the public distancing case-law applied to it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant adhered to the home territory agreement resulting from its representative’s attendance at a meeting and that, therefore, the public distancing case-law applied to it.

| 3. | The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant could rebut the presumption of adherence to the home territory principle resulting from its representative’s attendance only by ‘publicly distancing’ itself at the meeting. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant could rebut the presumption of adherence to the home territory principle resulting from its representative’s attendance only by ‘publicly distancing’ itself at the meeting.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

---