# C_2023094EN.01002701.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/27

---

Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case C-30/23 P)

(2023/C 94/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Alfa Acciai SpA (represented by: D. Fosselard, avocat and avvocato, D. Slater, avocat and Solicitor, and G. Carnazza and S. D’Ecclesiis, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission;

| — | give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

First ground:
  Infringement of Article 266 TFEU. Infringement of Articles 14 and 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004. (2) Incorrect and contradictory statement of reasons. Failure to give a ruling. Manifest error in law and manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made a manifest error in law and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment, at times failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellant, in so far as it held that the Commission, by organising a new hearing on the substance of the case, in the presence of representatives of the Member States, in 2018, had rectified a procedural irregularity criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia and Others v Commission, (C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717).

Second ground:
  Misinterpretation and infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Manifest error in law and misuse of powers. Failure to give a ruling and infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

The General Court found that the duration of the procedure, both as regards the administrative phase in isolation and the procedure as a whole, was not excessive and that that duration did not infringe the appellant’s rights of defence, and in doing so made an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in certain respects, erred in its statement of reasons in the judgment by failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellant against the Commission’s decision.

Third ground:
  Infringement of Article 296 TFEU. Error and contradiction in the statement of reasons in the judgment. Failure to give a ruling and a manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made another manifest error in law and a manifest error of assessment and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment by finding that the statement of reasons in the Commission’s decision was sufficient.

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---