Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/13

—

(Case C-604/13 P)

2014/C 24/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Janssen and T. Kapp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case T-386/10, and annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed on the appellant in the contested decision;

—order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:

First, the General Court infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), the principle of certainty, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in interpreting Article 23(2), second sentence, of Regulation No 1/2003 as a ceiling, thereby finding that the Commission did not erroneously determine the amount of the fine and putting itself in a position in which it was not able to reduce the fine as appropriate.

Second, the General Court infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, since it failed to have regard to the unlawful nature of the 2006 Guidelines in that account should not be taken of the duration and impact of infringements committed by ‘single-product’ undertakings.

Third, the General Court failed to recognise that the respondent should have exercised its discretion under Number 37 of the 2006 Guidelines so as to apply a fine under the 10 % ceiling to ‘single-product’ undertakings.

Moreover, the General Court infringed the principle of non-retroactivity by approving the use by the Commission of the 2006 Guidelines to calculate the fine.

Furthermore, the General Court erroneously calculated the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant, namely in relation to the geographical extent, the participation in only one of the three product groups and the appellant’s secondary role.

Lastly, the General Court infringed the principle that proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time.

(1) OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

—