12.2.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/5

—

(Case C-554/10 P)

2011/C 46/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure et J.-B. Pinçon, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, European Commission, Wendel Investissement SA

Form of order sought

—set aside the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 in so far as that judgement annulled the European Commission's Decision of 30 July 2004 approving Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in merger control procedure No COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

—dismiss Odile Jacob's action brought before the General Court against that decision;

—order Odile Jacob to pay all the costs of these proceedings, both at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, Lagardère alleges that the General Court erred in law by relying on the unlawfulness of the decision approving the trustee as a basis for annulling the approval decision.

By its second ground of appeal, which contains four parts, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the presence of the trustee's representative on the executive board of Editis as an independent third party could justify the annulment of the approval decision. That flows from the misinterpretation of certain facts, manifest failures to state reasons and several errors of law: the General Court thus erred in law by interpreting incorrectly the concept of independence (first part); the General Court failed to show in its statement of reasons how the links between the trustee's representative and Editis could have vitiated the content of the report submitted by the trustee to the Commission (second part); the General Court misinterpreted the facts and vitiated the judgment under appeal by a manifest failure to state reasons in finding that the trustee's report had exercised a ‘decisive influence’ on the approval decision (third part) and, lastly, the General Court erred in annulling the approval decision without showing how that decision would have differed in content in the absence of the alleged irregularities (fourth part).

—