do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-232/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, appeal, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_2011204EN.01001801.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/18





Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.
(Case C-232/11 P)
2011/C 204/32
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should






—


vary the fourth indent of Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the contested judgment, so that the fine there imposed on is reduced to at least EUR 7 400 000;










—


alternatively, set aside Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the contested judgment, to the extent that it concerns Reyrolle, and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


in any event order the respondent to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that there is an infringement of the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence. In the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to review the General Court misinterpreted Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003, where it penalised the undertaking Rolls-Royce/Reyrolle for the period from 1988 until 1998 not on the basis of the conduct of that undertaking, but instead relied on the economic power of an economic entity which only came into existence many years later (with the Reyrolle sale to VA Technologie).
Further, the appellant submits that there is an infringement of the principles, well established in the case-law of the Court of Justice, of equal treatment and proportionality. In the framework of Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 the General Court applied systemically different methods of calculation, which significantly prejudiced the appellant as compared with other parties on whom fines were imposed. No objective justification for this discrimination is apparent.