Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Cetarsa v Commission

(Case C-181/11 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken 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 — Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 56, 57, 96, 97)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Distortion of national law relied on as evidence — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 59)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the appeal procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 60, 61)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 62)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see para. 64)

6. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53(1)) (see paras 71, 101)

7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Distinction between the final amount and the intermediate amount of the fine — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)(2)) (see paras 80-85)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Cetarsa v Commission

(Case C-181/11 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken 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 — Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 56, 57, 96, 97)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Distortion of national law relied on as evidence — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 59)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the appeal procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 60, 61)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 62)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see para. 64)

6. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53(1)) (see paras 71, 101)

7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Distinction between the final amount and the intermediate amount of the fine — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)(2)) (see paras 80-85)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;