24.3.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/17

—

(Case C-40/12 P)

2012/C 89/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Set aside the judgment of 16 November 2011 delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-79/06 … and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment as may be required by the Court, including judgment on the financial consequences for the appellant of the time in excess of a reasonable period which has expired;

—reduce the amount of the fine to take account of the financial consequences for the appellant of the time in excess of a reasonable period which has expired;

—order the defendant to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to draw the conclusions from the entry into force of the [amended provisions] of the Treaty on European Union on 1 December 2009, and in particular of [amended] Article 6 thereof, which confers the same legal value on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as the Treaties.

By its second ground, the appellant submits that the General court failed to provide sufficient grounds for its decision with regard to the application of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) or of Article 15 of Regulation No 17. (2)

By its third ground, the appellant submits that the General Court has failed to exercise its powers of review and has failed properly to review the grounds and the reasoning of the Commission concerning the impact of the practice on the market.

By its fourth ground, the appellant submits, in the alternative, that the General Court has failed to comply with the procedure, by breaching the principle of the right to fair legal process within a reasonable period enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and the principle of effective judicial protection. That ground leads the appellant to seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside and, in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the fine to take account of the financial consequences for the appellant of the time in excess of a reasonable period which has elapsed.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ, English Special Edition, 1959-1962, p. 87).

—