12.11.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/11

—

(Case C-441/11)

2011/C 331/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Verhuizingen Coppens NV

Form of order sought

—Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 June 2011 in Case T-210/08 Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission;

—dismiss the application for annulment or annul only Article 1(i) of Decision C(2008) 926 final relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) in so far as it holds Verhuizingen Coppens NV liable for the agreement on commissions;

—set the level of the fine at such amount as the Court of Justice considers appropriate;

—order Verhuizingen Coppens NV to pay the costs of the appeal and such proportion of the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as the Court of Justice considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the General Court infringed the law, in particular Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU and the principle of proportionality, by annulling in its entirety the Commission’s decision holding Coppens liable for a single continuous infringement consisting, during the relevant period, of an agreement on commissions and an agreement on cover quotes, on the grounds that it had not been proved that Coppens was or must have been aware of the agreements on commissions. Moreover, in the interests of the proper administration of justice and the effective enforcement of the European Union’s competition rules the General Court could have annulled the decision at issue only in so far as Coppens was held liable for the agreement on commissions, since annulment of the whole decision means that Coppens’ participation in the agreement on cover quotes remains unpunished, unless the Commission adopts a further decision relating to that part of the original infringement. That could, however, lead to an undesirable duplication of administrative and judicial proceedings and might even contravene the principle ne bis in idem.

—