Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4144

(Case C-370/25 P)

(C/2025/4144)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: UniCredit SpA and UniCredit Bank GmbH (represented by: I. Vandenborre, advocaat, T. Selwyn Sharpe and I. Stamati, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—annul the European Commission Decision C(2021) 489 final in Case COMP/AT.40324 (1) – European Government Bonds (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it concerns the appellants;

—annul or reduce the fine imposed by the Decision as far as it concerns the appellants; and

—order the European Commission to pay its own costs and the appellants’ costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on seven pleas in law.

First plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal failed to present a consistent assessment of factors preceding alleged anticompetitive chatroom communications and their relevance for the appellants’ liability.

Second plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal erred in law in attributing to the appellants conduct of its employee that took place prior to his employment by the appellants, when he was still employed by another defendant bank.

Third plea-in-law. In upholding the European Commission’s conclusions for some but not other chatroom communications of the appellants, the judgment under appeal failed to present a consistent basis for finding the appellants’ participation in the infringement.

Fourth plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal erred in law in failing to draw the necessary conclusion from its corrections of the Decision in relation to the appellants’ lack of participation in the infringement.

Fifth plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal erred in law in its assessment of the European Commission’s duty to address data submitted by the appellants during the administrative proceeding.

Sixth plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal infringed the principle of equal treatment in assessing the European Commission’s duty to address data submitted differently for the appellants than for Nomura, on the basis of administrative burden and inconvenience, and in treating differentiated situations the same without objective justification.

Seventh plea-in-law. The judgment under appeal erred in law, and infringed the principle of proportionality, in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction in determining the amount of the fine.

—

(1)

OJ 2021, C 418, p. 11.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4144/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—