15.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/24

—

(Case C-644/13 P)

2014/C 45/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—annul, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s action;

—in the alternative, annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013;

—in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010;

—also in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that there is a contradiction in the General Court’s assessment of the evidence relating to all of the facts concerning France. The General Court assessed, in the judgment under appeal, three items of evidence in a manner which was contrary, even diametrically opposed, to its findings in relation to that same evidence in the parallel Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10 Sanitec, and T-380/10 Wabco, Ideal Standard and Others, in which the applicants were acquitted in respect of the allegations relating to France. According to the appellant in the present case, such a fundamental contradiction — as evidenced by the opposite conclusions reached in respect of the same evidence — infringes the principle of equal treatment and the principle of in dubio pro reo and also adversely affects the logical and legal consistency of the General Court’s judgment.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law. The General Court, it submits, artificially grouped together acts that were legally distinct and factually unrelated in order to classify them as constituting one continuous and complex infringement. Moreover, the General Court failed to take account of the fact that the measures in question, which it had nevertheless examined together, were not complementary.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the extent of the review carried out by the General Court, which confined itself to a limited review and, by so doing, failed to exercise in full its powers of judicial review and revision. The appellant takes the view that this amounts to an infringement of its right to a fair hearing.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the fine imposed is disproportionate.

—