7.12.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/21

—

(Case C-505/15 P)

(2015/C 406/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—reduce the fine imposed on SLM on its own account and as a result of its joint liability, primarily taking into account: (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance; (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events; and (iii) the marginal role played by the appellant and the shorter period of its participation in the cartel which, for SLM, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent indisputable evidence available to support allegations of such participation;

—grant the appellant fair compensation for the administrative delays which characterised the Commission’s management of the leniency application, an issue which was totally neglected by the General Court;

—grant the appellant leniency for its timely admissions;

—grant the appellant fair compensation for the procedural delays;

—in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

[SLM] raises, in essence, [six] grounds of appeal, intended to show that the General Court:

—in a way that was inconsistent with the evidence produced, insufficiently redefined the fine for the appellant, thereby infringing Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] and the established principles of EU law on the subject of the proportionality of antitrust sanctions as well as the duty to state reasons;

—by not applying the sanctioning Guidelines which were in force at the time of the events in question, infringed the EU legislation on the subject of the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law, in particular Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

—did not fully exercise its power of judicial review, thereby also infringing Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with a manifest misgovernment of the inconsistent evidence produced, bias, and a failure to state reasons;

—neglected to take a position on the maladministration by the Commission complained of as a result of the delays in its management of the leniency application, to which the Commission failed to respond until six years after its submission;

—dismissed the distinctiveness of the appellant’s leniency application, adding to the paradoxical and manifestly unfair finding that only the creators of a cartel could benefit from reduced sanctions for their offers of cooperation, as they have valuable evidence which other undertakings with marginal roles in the cartel cannot have;

—by taking 5 years to reach a decision, infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees a person’s right to have his case dealt with within a reasonable time.

—