17.7.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/34

—

(Case C-306/23 P)

(2023/C 252/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, M. Domecq, T. Isacu de Groot, L. Wildpanner, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Campine NV, Campine Recycling NV

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission;

—rule itself on the outstanding points of the dispute, or

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision, in so far as it has not yet been decided;

—order Campine to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266(1) TFEU by refusing to pay to Campine and Campine Recycling (‘Campine’) default interest for late payment at the ECB REFI rate plus 3,5 %, when, on 11 December 2019, the Commission reimbursed the amount of fine reduction that Campine had provisionally paid pursuant to Commission Decision C(2017)900 final (1) of 8 February 2017 in Case AT.40018, in implementing the judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 in the Case T-240/17 for the period between the date of provisional payment and the reimbursement of the amount. In support of the first ground, the Commission submits:

(i)that the General Court erred in law when finding that the conditions for an action for damages were met (first part of the first plea);

(ii)that the General Court erred in law by misapplying the EU law on the interest applicable to comply with judgments annulling or reducing competition fines (second part of the first plea);

(iii)that the General Court erred in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266(1) TFEU by not paying default interest in the amount claimed by Campine (third part of the first plea);

(iv)that the judgment under appeal is contrary to the case-law prior to the Printeos judgment (fourth part of the first plea);

(v)that the General Court erred in finding that the ex tunc effect of the judgments annulling competition fines entail a retroactive obligation to repay the fines before these are cancelled (fifth part of the first plea);

(vi)that the General Court erred in holding that the obligation to pay default interest for late payment from the date of the provisional payment of a fine reduced by the Court does not reduce the deterrent effect of that fine (sixth part of the first plea).

Should the Court reject the first ground of appeal, by its second ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had to pay default interest at the ECB REFI rate plus 3,5 %.

By its third ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission owed compound interest from the date of the partial reimbursement the fine.

* Language of the case: English.

Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling).

—

—