8.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/20

—

(Case C-291/14 P)

2014/C 303/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Faci SpA (represented by: Messrs S. Piccardo, Avvocato, S. Crosby, Advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 20 March 2014 of the General Court in Case T-46/10, or

—in the alternative cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant, or

—send the case back to the General Court for re-assessment, and

—in any event order the European Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10. In the judgment the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 28 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers)¹.

The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal:

By the first ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not examining the gravity of the infringement after November 1996 by reference to the change in the nature of the cartel thereby failing to take all the circumstances into account relevant for the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellant and so infringed Point 20 of the 2006 fining guidelines and/or Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003² and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

By the second ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to conduct an effective and in depth judicial review of the decision by holding without examination of the facts that the appellant had behaved exactly like all the other undertakings involved except that its implementation was less rigorous and by dismissing without any assessment that the ground that competition had been illegally distorted to the appellant’s detriment by application of Point 35 of the fining Guidelines to a competitor, Bärlocher.

—

¹ OJ C 307, 12.11.2010, p. 9

² 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 L 1, 04.01.2003, p. 1

—