Case C-694/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2019 by Italmobiliare SpA and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-523/15 Italmobiliare SpA and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, competition law, equal treatment, liability, ownership, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2019372EN.01003001.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/30






Appeal brought on 18 September 2019 by Italmobiliare SpA and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-523/15 Italmobiliare SpA and Others v Commission
(Case C-694/19P)
(2019/C 372/32)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek Kft., Petruzalek sro, Petruzalek sro (represented by: F. Moretti, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in full or in part and, consequently, cancel or reduce the fines imposed on the appellants; or










—


in the alternative, redetermine the fines, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, with all the consequences that that may have on the validity of the decision.




In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on four grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, misapplication or failure to apply the relevant case-law principles relating to the presumption of parental liability, misuse of power, failure to state reasons, infringement of fundamental rights by the General Court in relation to the attribution of liability to Italmobiliare for the alleged misconduct. The appellants claim in particular that, in any event, such an application of the presumption infringes the principle of legal certainty, the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of presumption of innocence laid down in Article 6(2) and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right to property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR, Article 14 of the ECHR and Articles 17 and 21 of the Nice Charter, as well as the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.

Second ground of appeal: infringement and/or misinterpretation and misapplication of the Leniency Notice by the General Court; unlawful grant of immunity to another undertaking and existence of the appellants’ direct interest in its annulment.

Third ground of appeal: infringement of law and/or infringement of essential procedural requirements by the General Court in that it wrongly considered the fines to be proportionate and adequate.

Fourth ground of appeal: the appellants ask the Court of Justice to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and redetermine the fines with all the consequences that that may have on the decision.


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