CELEX: 62015CN0588
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-588/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission

18.1.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 16/23
            
         Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-588/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/29)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, advocaten)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the Judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or
            
         
               —
            
            
               reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Applicant raises four pleas in law.
   
      First Plea: the General Court violated the Appellant's rights of defence in so far as it upheld the Commission's Decision to keep LPD outside the administrative proceedings as a defendant and, in particular, not to address the statement of objections to LPD. In rejecting LGE's plea, the General Court violated also the principle of proportionality in defining LGE's duty of care.
   
      Second Plea: the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by LGE and Philips, which are undertakings different from LPD.
   
      Third Plea: in the alternative, the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 .2 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by Philips.
   
      Fourth Plea: the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment in so far as it ruled that the Commission was entitled to apply the methodology of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products to LGE, but not to Samsung SDI.
   
      (1)  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 L 1, p. 1.