Case C-883/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17, HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Euribor, cartel, euro, interest, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2020045EN.01002901.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/29






Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17, HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission
(Case C-883/19 P)
(2020/C 45/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France (represented by:
K. Bacon QC, D. Bailey, Barristers, M. Simpson, Solicitor, C. Angeli, avocate, M. Giner, advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2019 in Case T- 105/17, HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission;










—


annul Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39914 – Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) (1); alternatively, annul Article 1(b) in so far as it refers to HSBC’s participation in a single and continuous infringement after 19 March 2007; and










—


order the Commission to pay HSBC’s costs arising from Case T-105/17 and the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: the General Court erred in law as regards the effects of the Commission’s infringement of essential procedural requirements, namely HSBC’s right to the principles of the presumption of innocence, good administration and the rights of defence.
Second plea: the General Court erred in law by misapplying Article 101(1) TFEU in its characterisation of the object of the manipulation of 19 March 2007 and/or by distorting the relevant evidence.
Third plea: the General Court erred in law by concluding that the two discussions were infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU by object. In particular, the General Court erred in stating that the pro-competitive nature of those discussions could only be taken into account under Article 101(1) TFEU in the context of either restrictions ancillary to a main operation or an assessment under Article 101(3) TFEU.
Fourth plea: the General Court’s conclusions as regards two discussions on 12 and 16 February 2007 manifestly distorted the evidence before the Court.
Fifth plea: the General Court’s conclusion that the single and continuous infringement that it identified in its judgment pursued a single aim is vitiated by two errors of law: (i) a manifest distortion of the facts and evidence as regards the discussion on 27 March 2007; and (ii) an error of law in the conclusion that two discussions on mids pursued the single aim identified by the General Court.
Sixth plea: alleging that the General Court erred in law by finding that HSBC participated in a single and continuous infringement that included conduct that was not identified as infringing conduct by HSBC in the Decision.


(1)  OJ 2019, C 130, p. 4.