Case C-191/24 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T113/17, Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v European Commission
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Euribor, European Economic Area, cartel, equal treatment, euro, evidence, exchange of information, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_202402933EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2933


6.5.2024






Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-113/17, Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v European Commission


(Case C-191/24 P)

(C/2024/2933)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Crédit agricole SA, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, M. Powell, Y. Utzschneider, A. Martin, J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:






—


find that the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Commissioner for Competition had not breached her obligation of subjective impartiality, that the Commission had not breached its obligation of objective impartiality and that the alleged objective impartiality of the Commission could remedy the defect of subjective impartiality of its Commissioner for Competition;










—


find that the Court distorted the evidence before it concerning the exchanges of information of which the appellants were accused and wrongly concluded that they fell within the description of a restriction of competition by object;










—


find that the Court committed a number of errors in law in finding that there was an overall plan pursuing a single objective;










—


find, principally, that the Court wrongly exercised its unlimited jurisdiction; in the alternative, that the Court wrongly held that the Commission had not infringed the principle of equal treatment when determining the value of the appellants’ sales, which determines the amount of the penalty; in the further alternative, that the Court failed to take account of all the relevant circumstances when deciding on the amount of the fine;










—


as a result, declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the Court of 20 December 2023, Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (T-113/17);










—


refer the case back to a different composition of the General Court, for a ruling on the application lodged on 24 May 2017 by the appellants in Case T-113/17;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on four grounds in support of their appeal.
The first ground of appeal alleges an error in law, by the Court, as regards the classification of the Commissioner for Competition’s comments and the interpretation of the Commission’s duty of impartiality.
The second ground of appeal is based on an alleged distortion by the Court of the exchanges of 13 December 2006 and 11 January 2007, leading to an erroneous classification of those exchanges as a restriction of competition by object.
The third ground of appeal alleges that the Court erred in law in the context of its obligation to state reasons concerning the existence of a single overall plan or plans and a single objective relating to the single and continuous infringement.
The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Court erred in law as regards the legality and proportionality of the fine imposed on the appellants. First, the appellants submit, principally, that the Court ruled ultra petita in exercising its unlimited jurisdiction. In the alternative, they claim that the Court reversed the burden of proof, infringed the adversarial principle and failed in its obligation to state reasons. Finally, in the further alternative, they claim that the Court failed to take account of all the relevant circumstances when deciding on the amount of the fine.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2933/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)