EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/9

Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by Team Relocations NV and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08, Team Relocations NV and others v Commission

(Case C-444/11 P)

2011/C 347/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd

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 (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011, in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08,

— in the event that the Court decides to apply Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute, — annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that Appellants infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997- September 2003; — annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it imposes on Appellants a fine of EUR 3,49 million; — in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on Appellants by the aforementioned Decision; — further in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the same Decision in so far as it holds Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 1 300,000; — further in the alternative, to order the Commission to disclose the factors which it has taken into account in awarding Interdean NV a 70 % reduction of the fine that otherwise would have been imposed on Interdean, and to subsequently allow Team Relocations an opportunity to explain in writing why these reasons also apply to its own situation,

— in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

First plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU and the Court of Justice’s case law on that provision, distortion of evidence, violation of the rules regarding the burden of proof and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal declares Team Relocations liable for the ‘single and continuous infringement’ referred to in Article 1 of the Decision between January 1997 and September 2003.

Second plea, violation of point 13 of the Commission’s 2006 fining guidelines, violation of the rules regarding the burden of proof, the in dubio pro reo and nulla poena sine culpa principles in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the basic amount of Appellants’ fine may be computed on the basis of turnover to which Team Relocations’ alleged infringement did non relate.

Third plea, violation of the principle of equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and violation of the Court’s case law giving effect to these principles, violation of the duty to state reasons and the rules regarding the burden of proof in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision could apply, with respect to Team relocations, a percentage of 17 % in calculating the basic amount of its fine.

Fourth plea, violation of the duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision could multiply Team Relocations’ percentage of the ‘value of sales’ by the number of years during which it participated in the infringement.

Fifth plea, violation of the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the imposition of an additional amount of 17 % on the Team Relocations was justified.

Sixth plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU of the Court of Justice’s case law on that provision, the duty to state reasons, the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle and distortion of evidence, in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the Decision correctly held that there exist no mitigating circumstances that warrant a substantial reduction of appellants’ fine.

Seventh plea, violation of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of non-discrimination and the duty to state reason in so far as the judgment under appeal holds Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 1 300,000.

Eighth plea, violation of the principle of proportionality and the duty to state reasons in so far as the judgment under appeal holds that the fine as imposed on Team Relocations satisfies the proportionality requirement.

Ninth plea, violation of the principle of non-discrimination, the duty to state reasons and the patere legem quam ipse fecisti principle in as far the judgment under appeal rejects Team Relocations’ eighth plea and in as far as it rejects Team Relocations’ request to order the Commission to disclose the reasons on the basis of which it granted Interdean a 70 % reduction in its fine.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 1, p. 1.