Case C-459/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, exchange of information, financial solvency, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), steel, trade information








C_2016392EN.01001701.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/17





Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
(Case C-459/16 P)
(2016/C 392/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10 and, in particular, in Case T-428/10, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC v Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when it held that Tycsa PSC formed an economic unit with MRT since Trenzas y Cables, the company that held a 100 % shareholding in Tycsa PSC, ceased to exist and MRT is not the successor of Trenzas y Cables.










2.


The General Court erred in law in failing to apply the appropriate legal standard and failed to state reasons in that it did not explain why the sworn statements of the managing directors of Tycsa PSC were insufficient as legally relevant evidence concerning the existence of a single economic unit.










3.


The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the impressions of competitors, in finding that those impressions constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating the existence of an economic unit comprised of Tycsa PSC, GSW and the other companies owned by the latter.










4.


The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the overlaps of staff between Tycsa PSC, GSW and the companies owned by the latter, by considering that those overlaps constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating that those companies formed an economic unit.










5.


The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the meeting held between Trenzas y Cables and a competitor, in treating that meeting as an additional indication in order to demonstrate that Tycsa PSC formed part of an economic unit, of which GSW was the parent company.










6.


The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, infringed its obligations as regards judicial review, by rejecting the appellant’s argument that it did not form part of an economic unit comprised of Trenzas y Cables and GSW, without even assessing the evidence adduced in order to rebut the alleged presumption of decisive influence.










7.


The General Court committed an error of law consisting in infringing the appellant’s rights of defence by finding that, inasmuch as the Commission based its assessment of the appellant’s ability to pay on facts adduced and known by the latter, the Commission had respected the appellant’s right to be heard.










8.


The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence and, in any event, did not exercise its powers of judicial review in accordance with law, erred in law by failing to fulfil its duty to state reasons and, lastly, the General Court erred in law by distorting the facts and the evidence relating to the possibility of the appellant obtaining external financing.










9.


The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, failed to fulfil its duty to exercise its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, by considering that the appellant had not provided the Commission with the information necessary to evaluate the assets of its shareholders. In addition, the General Court failed to state reasons since it did not explain why the Deloitte reports relied on by Tycsa PSC lacked evidential value.