24.10.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/19

—

(Case C-461/16 P)

(2016/C 392/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

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 of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10 and, in particular, in Case T-426/10, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission;

—order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

On MRT’s status as successor:

The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when assessing the issue of corporate succession and, in particular, MRT’s status as the successor of Trenzas y Cables.

The General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts by holding MRT, as the alleged successor of Trenzas y Cables, liable for the latter’s conduct between 10 January 1993 and 19 October 1996.

The General Court committed an error of law consisting in a failure to state reasons, by dismissing the appellant’s allegations regarding double penalisation.

On the additional evidence:

The General Court, in addition to committing an error of law by failing to apply the appropriate legal standard, also failed to state reasons in that it did not explain why the sworn statements of the managing directors of Trenzas y Cables relied on by MRT were insufficient.

The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the impressions of competitors, in finding that those impressions constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating the existence of an economic unit comprised of Trenzas y Cables PSC, GSW and the other companies owned by the latter. The General Court also committed an error of law by distorting the facts and the evidence relating to the perception of the competitors.

The General Court mischaracterised the facts, namely the overlaps of staff between Trenzas y Cables, GSW and the companies owned by the latter, in finding that those overlaps constituted an additional indication, and were therefore legally relevant, in demonstrating that the companies owned by GSW were not autonomous with regard to their parent company.

The General Court committed an error in law in its characterisation of certain facts, namely the meeting held between Trenzas y Cables and a competitor, by treating that meeting as an additional indication in order to demonstrate that Trenzas y Cables, to which MRT allegedly succeeded, quad non, formed part of an economic unit, of which GSW was the parent company.

On the evidence adduced in order to rebut the presumption:

The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, infringed its obligations as regards judicial review, by rejecting the appellant’s argument that it did not form part of an economic unit comprised of Trenzas y Cables, GSW and the companies owned by the latter, without even assessing the evidence adduced in order to rebut the alleged presumption of decisive influence.

The General Court committed an error of law consisting in infringing the appellant’s rights of defence by finding that, inasmuch as the Commission based its assessment of the appellant’s ability to pay on facts adduced and known by the latter, the Commission had respected the appellant’s right to be heard.

The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence and, in any event, did not exercise its powers of judicial review in accordance with law. In addition, the General Court erred in law by failing to fulfil its duty to state reasons. Lastly, and in any event, the General Court erred in law by distorting the facts and the evidence relating to the possibility of the appellant obtaining external financing.

The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, failed to fulfil its duty to exercise its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, by considering that the appellant had not provided the Commission with the information necessary to evaluate the assets of its shareholders. In addition, the General Court failed to state reasons since it did not explain why the Deloitte reports relied on by the appellant lacked evidential value.

—