EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/17

Appeal brought on 29 December 2010 by Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-628/10 P)

2011/C 72/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola Alén, abogado, A. João Vide, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05 insofar as it rejects the pleas in law alleging manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 23(2) Regulation 1/2003 (1), failure to state sufficient reasons and breach of the principle of equal treatment for the finding that Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. were jointly and severally liable;

— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Spain insofar as it relates to the appellants and reduce the fine imposed on the appellants accordingly; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the appellants submit that the Commission and the General Court misapplied Article 101(1) of the TFEU Treaty and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 by holding SCC and SCTC liable for the infringement committed by WWTE. In particular, the appellants argue that joint control is not sufficient to demonstrate they were in a position to exercise decisive influence over the conduct of WWTE during the period prior to May 1998. In any case, even if it were possible to attribute liability in this manner, both parents exercising joint control had to be taken into account for the purposes of identifying a single economic unit. In the alternative, the appellants submit that, by failing to state sufficient reasons for holding them liable, the Commission and then the General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU. In addition, for the period after May 1998, the General Court's judgment deprives the appellants of their rights derived under the general principles of EU law, the rights contained in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now part of the Lisbon Treaty and therefore having the full weight of primary law.

Second, the appellants submit that the General Court breached Article 48(2) of its rules of procedure, the appellants’ rights of defence and Article 296 TFEU by allowing the Commission to introduce a new argument and amend its pleadings in a reply to a written question. The appellants further submit that the General Court may not clarify in the judgment (and therefore ex post facto) the reasoning applied in the Commission's decision.

Finally, the appellants submit that, by treating other undertakings more favourably, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. On the one hand, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in defining the method for attributing liability, in particular by adopting a dual basis method which served to discriminate between companies on the strength of their case on appeal but otherwise failed to establish a standard. On the other hand, the appellants submit that the General Court applied the method for attributing liability in a discriminatory manner, either by failing to apply the dual basis test to Universal Corporation and Universal Leaf or by failing to apply to SCC and SCTC the method applied to Universal Corporation and Universal Leaf.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

OJ L 1, p. 1