CELEX: 62011CN0498
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-498/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

26.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/18
            
         Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-498/11 P)
   2011/C 347/28
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,
            
         
               —
            
            
               award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:
   
               a)
            
            
               it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;
            
         
               b)
            
            
               it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;
            
         
               c)
            
            
               it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and
            
         
               d)
            
            
               it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements.