19.11.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/9

—

(Case C-452/11 P)

2011/C 340/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and M.A. de Jong, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, in so far as the appellants’ action was dismissed;

—annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part in so far as it relates to the appellants;

—cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal the appellants rely on six pleas in law:

By the first plea the appellants submit that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission was not obliged to grant access to InBev’s reply to the objections.

By the second plea the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in deciding that the Commission was correct in taking the view in relation to the off-trade segment that the conduct of the undertakings concerned could be characterised as a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices.

By the third plea the appellants submit that the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and erred in law in the manner in which it determined the starting date of the infringement.

By the fourth plea the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to recognise that an unreasonably large fine was imposed on the appellants exclusively as a result of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure that was caused by the Commission itself.

By the fifth plea the appellants submit that, particularly by failing — or at least by failing sufficiently — to consider the comparison with the Belgian beer case Interbrew and Alken-Maes, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the Commission had not acted contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

By the sixth plea the appellants submit that the 5 % reduction in the fine granted by the General Court on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure is insufficient in view of the particularly large fine imposed on the appellants and the fact that the Commission has no justification for exceeding a reasonable period of time.

Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market)

—