# C_2023094EN.01002801.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2023 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-667/19 Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case C-31/23 P)

(2023/C 94/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà and B. Comparini, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | principally, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s principal application to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s principal application to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final;

| — | consequently, annul that Commission decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul that Commission decision;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s application in the alternative to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final in part and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s application in the alternative to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final in part and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

| — | consequently, annul in part that Commission decision and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul in part that Commission decision and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| (A) | Grounds seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court as a whole in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 as a whole







  I | Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the applicable provisions of law (Article 266 TFEU, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), Article 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004) (2) with regard to the hearing of 23 April 2018 and the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Failure to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence. No examination of the evidence and, in any event, no statement of reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. Arbitrary assessments. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(A)

Grounds seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court as a whole in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 as a whole

I

Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the applicable provisions of law (Article 266 TFEU, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), Article 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004) (2) with regard to the hearing of 23 April 2018 and the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Failure to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence. No examination of the evidence and, in any event, no statement of reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. Arbitrary assessments.

| II | Failure to observe the principle that a procedure must be concluded within a reasonable time. Infringement of the rights of the defence (Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR). Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

II

Failure to observe the principle that a procedure must be concluded within a reasonable time. Infringement of the rights of the defence (Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR). Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons.

| III | Failure to state reasons for or error in the statement of reasons for reopening the procedure and adopting the penalty decision (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). Misuse of power. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 ECHR. Failure to state reasons. Impermissible addition of grounds. Failure to assess facts and evidence. Reversal of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

III

Failure to state reasons for or error in the statement of reasons for reopening the procedure and adopting the penalty decision (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). Misuse of power. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 ECHR. Failure to state reasons. Impermissible addition of grounds. Failure to assess facts and evidence. Reversal of the burden of proof.

| IV | Failure to observe the non bis in idem principle (Article 50 of the Charter). |
| --- | --- |

IV

Failure to observe the non bis in idem principle (Article 50 of the Charter).

| V | Plea of illegality in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 raised under Article 277 TFEU (Article 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 5 TEU). Loss of the power to make findings and to impose sanctions (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). |
| --- | --- |

V

Plea of illegality in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 raised under Article 277 TFEU (Article 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 5 TEU). Loss of the power to make findings and to impose sanctions (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003).

| (B) | Grounds seeking the setting aside in part of the judgment of the General Court in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment in part of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 and, consequently, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed.







  VI | Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further infringements of the rights of the defence (Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 11 of Regulation No 773/2004). Failure to examine evidence and, in any event, failure to state reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(B)

Grounds seeking the setting aside in part of the judgment of the General Court in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment in part of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 and, consequently, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed.

VI

Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further infringements of the rights of the defence (Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 11 of Regulation No 773/2004). Failure to examine evidence and, in any event, failure to state reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons.

| VII | Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further wrongful conduct for other reasons. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Excessive amount. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

VII

Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further wrongful conduct for other reasons. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Excessive amount. Failure to state reasons.

| VIII | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the reduction of the amount of the fine on account of mitigating circumstances. Late statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

VIII

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the reduction of the amount of the fine on account of mitigating circumstances. Late statement of reasons.

---

(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).

---