Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:59
Date: 2018-02-01
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal against penalty

Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-270/12: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd and Others v European Commission (Case C-271/16 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, A. Gamble, Solicitors) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: set aside the contested judgment, insofar as it dismisses the Appellants’ first plea in respect of the infringements; vary Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Decision of 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the “Decision”) insofar as those provisions concern the Appellants and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the Appellants; and in any event, order the Commission to pay its own costs and the Appellants’ costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court. Pleas in law and main arguments When satisfying itself that the Commission did not depart from its decision-making practice, make an error of law, or infringe the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence before it and misapplying relevant case law. The Appellants’ specific pleas in law are as follows: That the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence as to whether the infringements in question, and the AMS and CAF infringements in particular, related to the entirety of the freight forwarding “package of services”. That the General Court erred in law by not applying the case law principle that, for an infringement related to a component of a product or service, the Commission should only take into account sales attributable to that component. ____________