CELEX: 62018CN0312
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-312/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2018 by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2018 in Case T-361/17: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission

201806150381954972018/C 231/203122018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180511171711Case C-312/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2018 by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2018 in Case T-361/17: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1710120180511EN0020171171Appeal brought on 11 May 2018 by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2018 in Case T-361/17: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission
   (Case C-312/18 P)2018/C 231/20Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux (represented by: M. Brealey QC, I. Vandenborre, advocaat, S. Dionnet, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the order of the General Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 March 2018 in case T-361/17, Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission;
         
      
            —
         
         
            declare admissible the appellant’s application registered as case T-361/17;
         
      
            —
         
         
            refer the case back to the General Court for the annulment or reduction of the penalty imposed by the Commission with the initial decision as amended by the correcting decision;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Commission to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The General Court has committed an error in law in determining the reference date by looking at the initial, incomplete, decision instead of the full and final decision, correct and complete in every aspect (particularly in those aspects that are the object of the appeal). By doing so, the General Court has breached the appellant’s fundamental rights (in particular, its right of defence). A person has the right to have the limitation period available in full as from the date of the substantive amendment decision. The General Court has also misinterpreted the Commission’s duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration in assuming that the appellant should have resorted to assumptions in order to fully understand how the Commission arrived at the amount of the fine.