30.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/20

—

(Case C-517/15 P)

(2015/C 398/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, A. Burckett St Laurent, and F. Hoseinian, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 in case T-465/12 AGC Glass Europe SA and Others v European Commission;

—annul the Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final of 6 August 2012 (Contested Decision) which rejected in part AGC’s request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the decision in Case COMP/39. 125 — Car glass, or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

—order the European Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants rely on the three following grounds of appeal and main arguments:

1.The General Court erred in holding that the Hearing Officer’s competence, under the Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, does not encompass an assessment of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. In addition, the judgment distorts the facts by purporting that the Hearing Officer did assess the arguments raised by the Appellants in relation to the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment.

2.The General Court erred in concluding that the Contested Decision did not breach the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. Given that the Appellants were the sole leniency applicants, they have a right not to have their confidential information published, as such publication would enable third parties to identify the source of self-incriminating statements submitted to the Commission in the context of the leniency programme.

3.The judgment is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in relation to the Hearing Officer’s competence as well as in relation to the applicability of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. The General Court therefore breached its duty under Article 296 TFEU and Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. In particular, the General Court does not address the reasons for which it departed from established case law that the Appellants referred to.

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ L 275, p. 29.

—