CELEX: 62019CN0466
Language: en
Date: 2019-06-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-466/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission

5.8.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 263/36
            
         
      Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
      (Case C-466/19 P)
      (2019/C 263/41)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, advogado, M. Davilla, dikigoros)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Decision C(2017) 2258 final of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (Predation) (the ‘Decision’);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice, and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         First plea in law: the General Court failed to address arguments raised by the appellant.
      
         Second plea in law: the finding that the Decision was adequately reasoned is based on manifest errors of fact, of law and inadequate reasoning.
      
         Third plea in law: the finding that the information requested by the Decision was necessary is based on manifest errors of law and fact, a distortion of the evidence, inadequate reasoning, and a failure to consider all the relevant evidence.
      
         Fourth plea in law: the finding that the information requested by the Decision was proportionate is based on manifest errors of fact, a distortion of the evidence, and inadequate reasoning.
      
         Fifth plea in law: the General Court misapplied the rules governing the burden of proof regarding alleged infringements of Article 102 TFEU.
      
         Sixth plea in law: the General Court made findings that infringe the right to avoid self-incrimination.
      
         (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 2003, L 1, p. 1).