# C_2019238EN.01000802.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/8

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-201/17, Printeos v Commission

(Case C-301/19 P)

(2019/C 238/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, P. Rossi, and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Printeos, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 delivered in Case T-201/17, Printeos S.A. v European Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 delivered in Case T-201/17, Printeos S.A. v European Commission

| — | give a ruling on the substance of the case and dismiss in its entirety the action on the grounds that






  — | the claim for compensation based on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and Article 340 TFEU, and on Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is unfounded, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

give a ruling on the substance of the case and dismiss in its entirety the action on the grounds that

—

the claim for compensation based on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and Article 340 TFEU, and on Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is unfounded,

| — | the plea of illegality in respect of Article 90(4)(a) of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded, |
| --- | --- |

—

the plea of illegality in respect of Article 90(4)(a) of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded,

| — | the claim for annulment of the email of 26 January 2017 is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

—

the claim for annulment of the email of 26 January 2017 is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded.

| — | order Printeos S.A. to pay the costs of both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Printeos S.A. to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in the judgment under appeal in respect of the following:

| — | First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the European Commission’s rights of defence and respect for due process by infringing the principle of non ultra petita, when it unduly altered the subject matter and essence of the dispute after inviting the applicant to amend, at the hearing, the classification of the interest which it claimed in its application initiating proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the European Commission’s rights of defence and respect for due process by infringing the principle of non ultra petita, when it unduly altered the subject matter and essence of the dispute after inviting the applicant to amend, at the hearing, the classification of the interest which it claimed in its application initiating proceedings.

| — | Second ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by declaring that that article imposes an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest in the event of annulment of a decision imposing a penalty or fine with retroactive effect from the date of provisional payment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by declaring that that article imposes an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest in the event of annulment of a decision imposing a penalty or fine with retroactive effect from the date of provisional payment.

| — | Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by interpreting Article 266 TFEU in the light of the judgments in IPK (2) and Corus (3) and the order in Holcim (4) without taking into account the new regulatory framework applicable to penalties in competition matters. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by interpreting Article 266 TFEU in the light of the judgments in IPK (2) and Corus (3) and the order in Holcim (4) without taking into account the new regulatory framework applicable to penalties in competition matters.

| — | Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by finding that, in the present case, the conditions laid down by the case-law for non-contractual liability to be incurred had been met. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by finding that, in the present case, the conditions laid down by the case-law for non-contractual liability to be incurred had been met.

| — | Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty by not applying, in the present case, Article 90 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 in spite of the finality of a previous decision which did apply that article. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty by not applying, in the present case, Article 90 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 in spite of the finality of a previous decision which did apply that article.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p.1).

(2)  Case Commission v IPK International, C-336/13 P, judgment of 12 February 2015, EU:C:2015:83.

(3)  Case Corus v Commission, T-171/99, judgment of 10 October 2001, EU:T:2001:249.

(4)  Case Holcim v Commission, T-86/03, order of 4 May 2005, EU:T:2005:157.

---