15.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/23

(Case C-642/13 P)

2014/C 45/40

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch — Belgium (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and N. Lorjé, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside 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 Villeroy & Boch v Commission in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s claims;

—in the alternative, annul in part the determination in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 16 September 2013 in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010 to such an amount as the Court considers fair and appropriate;

—in the further alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 and refer the case back to the General Court;

—in each case, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

1.In its first ground, the appellant argues that the General Court is guilty of distorting evidence by wrongly failing to take account of information, submitted by the appellant and discussed during the oral procedure before the General Court, that was relevant to its verdict.

2.In its second ground, the appellant objects to the merging of factually and legally independent courses of conduct into one allegedly single, complex and continuous infringement. The appellant also contends that the application by the General Court and the Commission of the principle of ‘one single, complex and continuous infringement’ is at variance with the right to due process and the proper administration of justice and contrary to the legal requirement of review by the General Court.

3.By its third ground, the appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a proper legal assessment, thereby allowing the guarantee of effective legal protection under European Union law to be infringed.

4.By its fourth ground, the appellant argues that the fine imposed cannot, in any event, be supported by the outcome of the General Court’s examination and that it is disproportionate.