9.7.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/18

—

(Case C-233/11 P)

2011/C 204/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should

—set aside Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 in so far as Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear are annulled;

—set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and uphold Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final and, in respect of Article 2(k) of that decision, declare that each of the joint debtors in relation to the other parties who are jointly liable must pay one third of the fine of EUR 4 500 000;

—alternatively set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

—in any event set aside Paragraph 7 of the judgment under appeal and order the respondent to pay the costs of proceedings in Case T-124/07 and the costs of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, also annulled the fine which was imposed on Schneider Electric SA alone and improperly increased the joint and several liability of the appellants. The judgment under appeal is therefore in breach of fundamental legal principles. The General Court is in breach of the principle of the right to bring proceedings and the principle which is implicit in Article 263 TFEU that no person can institute proceedings on behalf of another person.

Further, the General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, intervened in relation to the validity of the Commission’s Decision against Schneider Electric SA. That improper interference with the validity is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

The appellants were given no opportunity to state their opinion on the material findings of the General Court. That constitutes a defect in the procedure before the General Court, since thereby the appellants’ right to a hearing within the meaning of Article 6 EHCR has was infringed.

—