Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/24

—

(Case C-89/15 P)

(2015/C 146/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi and M. Toniolo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court holds that the appellant’s rights of the defence have not been infringed and, consequently, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

—in the alternative, set aside only the part of the judgment under appeal which fixes the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant at 3 % and, consequently, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, either reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by the highest amount it deems appropriate or refer the case back to the General Court;

—in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs, including those pertaining to the proceedings before the General Court;

—incidentally, declare that the procedure followed before the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in so far as the General Court disregarded the rule that it must adjudicate within a reasonable time.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

1.First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when assessing whether the procedural rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and the appellant’s rights of the defence had been infringed

The General Court erred in law in holding that the comparisons made by the appellant between the contested decision and the Commission’s decision of 2002 were irrelevant and in concluding that the Commission was not obliged to issue a new statement of objections allowing the undertakings concerned to comment on the facts at issue.

2.Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when determining the final amount of the fine

When re-determining the amount of the fine, the General Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in a way which was incorrect in two respects:

(i) it is not possible to ascertain from the grounds of the judgment under appeal whether, in reducing the amount of the fine by 3 %, the General Court gave due consideration to the fact that the infringement imputable to the appellant was less serious and of shorter duration;

(ii) the judgment under appeal is contradictory and vitiated by errors of law in so far as it extends the liability for other undertakings’ conduct between 25 November 1997 and 30 November 1998 to the appellant and implicitly imposes such liability on that company for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine.

3.Third ground of appeal: the General Court contradicted itself and erred in law in the part of the judgment under appeal in which it categorised the appellant as a party to the December 1998 agreement and therefore included that company in the cartel for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine

The General Court erred in law in giving it to be understood that the appellant was involved in the December 1998 agreement on sales quotas without acknowledging the fact that, during the period in which the agreement was devised, the appellant disassociated itself from the part of the cartel responsible for that agreement. That error of law affected the computation of the basic amount of the fine in terms of determining the seriousness and the duration of the infringement imputable to the appellant.

4.Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the impact of the involvement of the appellant’s directors on the increase in the starting amount of the fine

The General Court does not explain what evidence it used as its basis for concluding that the involvement of the appellant’s directors was not a decisive factor in increasing the basic amount of the fine. If the General Court had established that the multiplier applied to the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant had been calculated partly on the basis of the involvement of that undertaking’s directors, it should have annulled the Commission’s decision and, consequently, reduced the amount of the fine.

—

(1) 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 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

—