- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-603/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-462/07: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA v European Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0603
62013CN0603
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.1.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/12
—
(Case C-603/13 P)
2014/C 24/23
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA (represented by: M. Slotboom, advocaat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside the Judgment in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, and/or to annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision in so far as it relates to the applicants, and/or to set aside Article 2 of the Decision to the extent a fine has been imposed on the applicants or to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the Decision,
—set aside the Judgment and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the Court of Justice;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence, failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding assessment of evidence and disregarded the general principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by determining that the Commission cannot be regarded as having found unlawfully that the parties participated in price coordination ‘until 2002’. Moreover, the General Court failed to give sufficient grounds for that determination.
The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence and failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence, including infringement of the principle of ‘ne ultra petita’, infringement of the right to a fair trial and the right of defence (the right to be heard) by finding that the parties can be held liable in respect of the monitoring system and the compensation mechanism and that therefore there is no need to vary the starting amount of the fine.
The General Court infringed the parties’ fundamental right to have their case heard within a reasonable time.
—