# C_2014024EN.01001601.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-496/07 Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

(Case C-617/13 P)

2014/C 24/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, S.A., Repsol Petróleo, S.A. and Repsol, S. A. (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J.L. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan, Á. Givaja Sanz and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Appellants:

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 should:

| 1. | Set aside the judgment under appeal in relation to:






  — | the attribution of joint and several liability for the infringement to Repsol Petróleo, S.A. and Repsol YPF, S.A. (currently Repsol, S.A.) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment under appeal in relation to:

—

the attribution of joint and several liability for the infringement to Repsol Petróleo, S.A. and Repsol YPF, S.A. (currently Repsol, S.A.)

| — | the incorrect taking into consideration of the period from 1998 to 2002 for the purposes of calculating the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

—

the incorrect taking into consideration of the period from 1998 to 2002 for the purposes of calculating the amount of the fine.

| — | the incorrect taking into account by the General Court of the basic amount of the fine set by the Commission as a result of that Court’s failure to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

the incorrect taking into account by the General Court of the basic amount of the fine set by the Commission as a result of that Court’s failure to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Annul the contested decision to that effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annul the contested decision to that effect.

| 3. | Reduce, under its unlimited jurisdiction, the amount of the fine in the amount which it considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reduce, under its unlimited jurisdiction, the amount of the fine in the amount which it considers appropriate.

| 4. | Declare the duration of the judicial proceedings before the General Court excessive and unjustified, in breach of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of ECHR). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declare the duration of the judicial proceedings before the General Court excessive and unjustified, in breach of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of ECHR).

| 5. | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First, Repsol alleges an error in law in relation to the methodology used in the judgment to assess the evidence submitted in support of the full and effective commercial independence of the subsidiary company Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, S.A. or, alternatively, a failure to state the reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, Repsol alleges an error in law in relation to the methodology used in the judgment to assess the evidence submitted in support of the full and effective commercial independence of the subsidiary company Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, S.A. or, alternatively, a failure to state the reasons.

| 2. | Secondly, Repsol submits that the judgment errs in its interpretation of the leniency notice of 2002. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Secondly, Repsol submits that the judgment errs in its interpretation of the leniency notice of 2002.

| 3. | Thirdly, Repsol submits that the judgment infringes Article 261 TFEU and the principle of proportionality, as a result of the General Court’s failure to carry out a full review, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, of the penalties in the field of competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Thirdly, Repsol submits that the judgment infringes Article 261 TFEU and the principle of proportionality, as a result of the General Court’s failure to carry out a full review, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, of the penalties in the field of competition.

| 4. | Finally, Repsol alleges breach by the General Court of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to dispose of the case within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, Repsol alleges breach by the General Court of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to dispose of the case within a reasonable time.

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1

1

---