Case C-414/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by Bolloré against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission
Date: 2012-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, parent company, pulp and paper industry, restriction on competition








C_2012355EN.01001002.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/10





Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by Bolloré against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission
(Case C-414/12 P)
2012/C 355/17
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Bolloré (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and the obligation to state reasons in drawing no inferences from the fact that Bolloré was penalised as a parent company, unlike Stora, which was in a similar position;










—


set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of non-distortion, Bolloré’s rights of defence, the effects of the annulment of Decision 2004/337/EC, (1) the principle of res judicata and Article 48(2) of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, in holding that judgment in the case against Bolloré was delivered within a reasonable time and that Bolloré was able to defend itself against the complaints notified against it;










—


set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and fairness in refusing to reduce the amount of the fine incurred due to the factual and procedural context of the present proceedings;










—


rule definitively in Case T-372/10 in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, accordingly, set aside the judgment appealed against in so far as it concerns Bolloré or, in any event, in the exercise of its full jurisdiction, reduce the amount imposed on Bolloré by the Commission and upheld by the General Court;










—


should the Court not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;










—


lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.
By its first plea, divided into two parts, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and the obligation to state reasons by failing to draw any inferences from the fact that it had been penalised for the conduct of its former subsidiary, unlike Stora, which was in a similar position.
By its second plea, divided into four parts, it argues that the General Court infringed Article 41 of the Charter, Article 6 of the ECHR, the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of non-distortion, the appellant’s rights of defence, the effects of the annulment of Decision 2004/337, the principle of res judicata and Article 48(2) of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, in holding that Bolloré’s right to have its case heard and judged within a reasonable time had not been infringed.
By its third plea, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and fairness in failing to take account of the factual and procedural context of the present proceedings and in refusing to reduce the amount of the fine incurred.


(1)  Commission Decision of 17 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2187 — CVC v Lenzing) (OJ 2004 L 82, p. 20).