Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-84/13: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission
(Case C-615/15 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, avocat, L. Eskenazi, avocate, A. Fall, advocate, C. Erol, avocate)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 in Case T-84/13, Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v. European Commission;
As a consequence, to annul Articles 2.1 (b) and 2.2(b) of the Commission's decision insofar as they concern the Appellants and to reduce the relevant fines;
To order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law. The first two concern the CPT cartel and the last two – the CDT cartel.
First plea: the General Court failed to address SDI’s plea according to which sales of non-cartelized products should have been excluded from the CPT cartel fine calculation. Even assuming that the General Court’s reasoning regarding the existence of a single and continuous infringement offers an implicit justification for the rejection of SDI’s plea (quod non), such implicit justification violates the Commission’s Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/20031 (the Fining Guidelines).
Second plea: as regards the determination of the end date of the CPT cartel, the General Court dismissed without any valid reasons SDI’s plea that collusion requires the involvement of at least two undertakings, and further violated Article 101 TFEU insofar as the judgment concluded that SDI’s participation in the CPT cartel lasted, alone, until 15 November 2006. Further, the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment insofar as it refused to reduce the fine imposed on SDI.
Third plea: the General Court made an error in law by taking into account in the calculation of the CDT cartel fine SDI’s sales to Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC). The General Court misapplied the concept of EEA sales under the Fining Guidelines insofar as it failed to determine the place where competition takes place.
Fourth plea: the General Court committed an error of law in assessing the application of the Leniency Notice, which resulted in a failure to grant SDI a 50% fine reduction in relation to the CDT cartel. The General Court’s conclusions regarding the CPT cartel are legally irrelevant in the context of the CDT cartel. Furthermore, the General Court misapplied the Leniency Notice and erred in upholding the Commission’s finding that the lack of description of the market sharing aspect of the infringement by SDI in its reply to the Statement of Objections could, in itself, impact the assessment of SDI’s cooperation during the administrative procedure.
____________
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 L 1, p. 1