25.7.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/18

—

(Case C-297/22 P)

(2022/C 284/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, W. Knibbeler, F. Roscam Abbing, A. Pliego Selie and T. C. van Helfteren, advocaten, and F. Hoseinian, Advokat)

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 as requested in this appeal;

—render final judgment and compensate the Appellant for the damages incurred and applicable interest as requested at first instance as part of these Article 340 TFEU proceedings, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed errors of law in concluding that the serious procedural error committed by the Commission in relation to the econometric model (and the substantive irregularities which it accepts) were insufficient to establish causation, and by failing to qualify the substantive irregularities in relation to the econometric model as a sufficiently serious breach establishing liability.

By the second ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law in concluding that the break fee is irrecoverable because it is incurred ‘freely’.

By the third ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law in concluding that the foregone synergies are irrecoverable.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law in concluding that the Commission has a discretion to accept efficiencies and thus that the Commission did not commit a sufficiently serious error as regards the efficiency assessment.

By the fifth ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law in concluding that UPS did not make the necessary requests to the hearing officer for FedEx documents.

By the sixth ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law in concluding that the damage emanating from the loss of opportunity constitutes a new head of damage which would be inadmissible.

—