CELEX: 62013CN0614
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-614/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-378/10: Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission

25.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/14
            
         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-378/10: Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-614/13 P)
   2014/C 24/26
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, S. Heinz, Rechtsanwältin, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the General Court’s judgment in Case T-378/10 insofar as it dismisses their request to annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appeal contains two pleas.
   According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law by manifestly distorting the evidence and by misapplying the legal test for finding that the Appellants participated in a single, complex infringement covering ceramics products.
   According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law by failing to state adequate reasons for its finding.