Case C-514/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Odile Jacob v Commission
Date: 2014-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: economic concentration, legality, merger control, right to justice, size of business








C_2015026EN.01001402.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/14





Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Odile Jacob v Commission
(Case C-514/14 P)
(2015/C 026/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the present appeal is admissible and well founded;










—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Editions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission and itself adjudicate the dispute;










—


grant the forms of order sought by Éditions Odile Jacob at first instance and accordingly annul Decision SG-Greffe (2011) D/C(2011)3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, by which the Commission once again approved Wendel as purchaser of the assets transferred in accordance with the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;










—


order the European Commission and the interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, including those relating to the interim proceedings and the rectification proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the Commission had infringed Article 266 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As that flaw tainted the lawfulness of the first approval decision, it also vitiated the contested decision, since the latter did not remedy the effects of the agent’s lack of independence throughout his mission. Consequently, according to the appellant, the Commission’s adoption of the contested decision constitutes a breach of the rules governing the right to a fair hearing and negates the effectiveness of any judicial review of the measures taken by that institution.
Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the conditional authorisation decision could constitute a legal basis for a new approval decision.
Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the legal criteria for assessing the independence of the transferee of the assets sold in relation to the transferor; that it erred in law; and that it distorted the facts relating to that assessment.