Case C-467/13P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 ICF v Commission
Date: 2013-08-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aluminium, backlog of court cases, fine, jurisdiction, market-sharing agreement








C_2013336EN.01000801.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/8





Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 ICF v Commission
(Case C-467/13P)
2013/C 336/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) (represented by: P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) v European Commission and, if the Court considers that it has all the information at its disposal necessary in order itself to give final judgment on the substance of the case, annul the fine of EUR 1 700 000 imposed on ICF in the contested decision or, at least, reduce the amount of that fine;










—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three grounds.
By its first ground, the applicant maintains that the General Court erred in law, or at least was guilty of a substantive inaccuracy in its finding of the facts, or distorted the facts in its assessment thereof, when holding that the fact that the Commission based the contested decision on documents not referred to in the statement of objections did not constitute an infringement of the rights of the defence or of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

The appellant also considers that the General Court erred in law when holding that the reduction by the Commission of the number of persons considered to have committed an infringement made between the statement of objections and the adoption of the contested decision did not infringe the appellant's interests or its rights of the defence, given that the appellant did not have the opportunity to comment on that reduction before adoption of the contested decision.
By its second ground, the appellant criticises the General Court for having infringed Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The General Court misinterpreted paragraph 18 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines when it interpreted the expression ‘the total value of the sales of the goods or services to which the infringement relates’ as covering only the total value of the sales of the undertakings which participated in the infringement and not as the total value of sales on that market.
The appellant also complains that the General Court failed to comply with its duty to state reasons by not responding in a relevant or adequate way to its argument to the effect that the Commission departed from its decision-making practice when fixing the amount of the fine.
By its third ground, the appellant considers that the length of the proceedings before the General Court was excessive, and therefore in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, given that in its view the case was a straightforward one involving few documents. Consequently, the appellant seeks, in application of the Baustahlgewebe v Commission
 (2) case-law, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it.
Finally, the appellant accuses the General Court of having infringed Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The General Court did not exercise its unlimited jurisdiction correctly, having failed to evaluate itself or explain why, in the present case, the fine imposed was justified. In that regard, the appellant considers that the General Court did not reply to the various arguments raised by it in the proceedings before the General Court.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417.