- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-251/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-799/17, Scania and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0251
62022CN0251
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 213/35
—
(Case C-251/22 P)
(2022/C 213/47)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH (represented by: D. Arts, advocaat, F. Miotto, avocate, N. De Backer, advocate, C.E. Schillemans, advocaat, C. Langenius, S. Falkner, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, advokater)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The Appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under the appeal;
—annul, in whole or in part, Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) and / or cancel or reduce the relevant fines;
—or, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, and
—order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on the following four grounds of appeal:
1.In their first ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by failing to acknowledge that the Commission, by adopting the Settlement Decision (1) and thereafter continuing its investigation against Scania by relying on the same case team, infringed Article (41)1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
2.In their second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the geographic scope of the German level conduct as extending to the whole of the EEA, whereas it was limited to Germany.
3.In their third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the series of acts at the three different levels as a single infringement.
4.In subsidiary order, in their fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by upholding a fine in relation to conduct that is time-barred.
—
Commission Decision C(2016) 4673 final of 19.07.2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks).
—