CELEX: 62019CN0699
Language: en
Date: 2019-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-699/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Quanta Storage, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/15: Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

2.12.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 406/16
            
         
      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Quanta Storage, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/15: Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission
      (Case C-699/19 P)
      (2019/C 406/23)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, W. Sparks, advocaat, T. Siakka, Δικηγόρος)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  a)
               
               
                  set aside the contested judgment insofar as it dismisses the action and orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission;
               
            
                  b)
               
               
                  annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2015 (Case AT39639 – Optical disc drives) insofar as it relates to the appellant;
               
            
                  c)
               
               
                  in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;
               
            
                  d)
               
               
                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and
               
            
                  e)
               
               
                  order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the appellant relies on the following five pleas.
      First Plea: alleging that the General Court failed to apply the relevant legal test and distorted the clear sense of evidence in relation to the breach of the rights of defence by the Commission’s finding of several infringements.
      Second Plea: alleging that the General Court distorted the clear sense of evidence concerning the right of defence and the right to good administration.
      Third Plea: alleging that General Court failed to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly and/or failed to apply the correct legal test in relation to contradictions concerning the scope of the infringement.
      Fourth Plea: alleging a distortion of the clear sense of evidence, failure to apply the correct legal test and/or failure to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly as regards the Appellant’s liability under Article 101 TFEU.
      Fifth Plea: alleging a breach of unlimited jurisdiction, distortion of the clear sense of evidence and defective reasoning in relation to the setting of the fine.