Case C-376/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2025 by Portigon AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 March 2025 in Case T-462/21, Portigon AG v European Commission
Date: 2025-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Eurobond, European Economic Area, bond, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), trade information








C_202504146EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4146


4.8.2025






Appeal brought on 4 June 2025 by Portigon AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 March 2025 in Case T-462/21, Portigon AG v European Commission


(Case C-376/25 P)

(C/2025/4146)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Portigon AG (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, M. Röhrig, C. Dankerl, Rechtsanwälte)

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 26 March 2025 in Case T-462/21 and annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 May 2021, (1) in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the appeal proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on eight grounds of appeal.






—


First, the appellant contends that the General Court erred in law in considering that, by the Statement of Objections, Portigon AG had been put in a position to identify the conduct and evidence relied on against it and to defend itself effectively. According to the appellant, the General Court also erred in law in considering that (re)classifying certain discussions in Category 4 only at the time of the Letter of Facts did not result in the European Commission making a fundamentally new legal assessment that required a new Statement of Objections to be sent. This constituted an infringement of Portigon AG’s rights of defence.










—


Second, the General Court’s view that the Commission was right to find a single and continuous infringement between 4 January 2007 and 28 November 2011 is contrary to Article 101 TFEU and was based on serious errors of assessment. The judgment also suffers from a failure to state reasons within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and Article 117(m) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.










—


Third, the appellant claims that the General Court’s finding that Portigon AG’s participation in the infringement had not already ended prior to 1 June 2011 is based on an error of law in the application of Article 101 TFEU and a serious error of assessment. Furthermore, the judgment is based on an inadequate statement of reasons in that regard.










—


Fourth, the appellant contends that the General Court erred in law in its application of Article 101 TFEU, infringed the obligation to state reasons and infringed Portigon AG’s rights of defence in so far as it confirmed the Commission’s finding that the infringement as a whole was to be characterised exclusively as a restriction of competition by object.










—


Fifth, the judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 101 TFEU in so far as it attributes to Portigon AG the conduct of SM between 19 October 2009 and 3 June 2011. The General Court also erred in law in taking into account, to the detriment of Portigon AG, the knowledge and conduct of SM based on his participation in the infringement in connection with his previous employment at other participating banks.










—


Sixth, the General Court infringed the fourth sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) by stating that the Commission was not required to demonstrate a legitimate interest in finding the infringement against Portigon AG.










—


Seventh, the General Court also erred in law in finding that there was no contradiction between the contested decision and the decision on State aid and that the adoption of the contested decision did not therefore breach the principle of consistency under EU law.










—


Eighth and lastly, the General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission had exercised its discretion as regards whether to discontinue the administrative procedure brought against Portigon AG and had provided sufficient reasons for the exercise of that discretion.






(1)  Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final of 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds).

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4146/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)