CELEX: 62013CN0613
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-613/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission

22.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/27
            
         Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission
   (Case C-613/13 P)
   2014/C 52/49
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal insofar as it annuls article 1 of the contested Decision as regards the events in AFICS and the liability of Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec for them;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside in full point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               if the Court of Justice gives final judgment, to dismiss the action for annulment also insofar as it concerns the events in AFICS and to reinstate the fines imposed on Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec; and, in any event,
            
         
               —
            
            
               to order the applicants at first instance (now other parts in the proceedings) bear the costs of this appeal, and, to the extent that the Court of Justice gives final judgment on the action for annulment, of such case as well.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   First ground: failure to comply with duty to state reasons and the rules of evidence; the General Court failed to examine several relevant pieces of evidence and applied too high evidentiary requirements for those pieces of evidence that the General Court did examine.
   Second ground: contradictory reasoning; the assessment of the evidence is in direct contradiction with that in three other judgments delivered the same day relating to the same decision and the same facts.