CELEX: 62011CN0493
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-493/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission

26.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/17
            
         Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-493/11 P)
   2011/C 347/26
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the Judgment,
            
         
               —
            
            
               based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its first plea, the Appellant disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability to UTC for the conduct of GTO and the Otis subsidiaries. The plea is dived into three limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by failing to comply with the legal test provided for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability arising from 100 % ownership of subsidiaries by a parent company. Second, the General Court's interpretation of the legal test for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in addressing the specific rebuttals of the presumption of imputability raised by UTC.
   By its second plea, the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed an error of law by omitting to address UTC's claim of breach of equal treatment with MEC.