Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:348
Date: 2014-05-22
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal against penalty
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 May 2014 1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Lawfulness (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) 2. Appeal —Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas in law during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Meaning — General nature of the heading of a plea put forward in the application — Development, at a later stage in the proceedings, of specific arguments — Need for a sufficiently close link with the arguments raised in the application (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) 4. Appeal — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 5. Appeal — Response — Formal requirements — Statement of the form of order sought — Request that a finding made by the General Court be amended — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 116(1) and 113(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 22) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 23) 3. The general nature of the heading of a plea put forward in the application at first instance cannot cover the development, at a later stage in the proceedings, of specific arguments which are not sufficiently closely related to the arguments raised in the application. (see paras 33, 34) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 37-39) 5. Under Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in the version in force at the date on which a response is lodged in an appeal, the response must seek to dismiss, in whole or in part, the appeal, or to set aside, in whole or in part, the decision of the General Court, or must seek the same form of order, in whole or in part, as that sought at first instance. Article 113(1) of the Rules of Procedure sets out the same requirements as regards an appeal. Therefore, a request which does not seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside, even in part, but rather seeks amendment of a finding made by the General Court in the context of its examination of a plea put forward before it, must be rejected as inadmissible. (see paras 42-44)