4.7.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/24

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 in case T-265/12 Schenker Ltd v European Commission;

—

annul Article 1(1)(a) of the Commission decision of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the Decision) or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court;

—

annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fines set out in Article 2(1)(a) of the Decision or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

—

order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

1.

The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission was entitled to rely on Deutsche Post's immunity application, that the principle of prohibition of double representation had not been breached and that the Commission did not have to investigate the potential breach of the said principle.

2.

The General Court errs in law in interpreting Article 1 of Regulation 141/62 (1) as not applicable to the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct.

3.

The General Court errs in law by concluding that the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct, despite being limited to surcharges for a filing service related to shipments from the UK to countries outside the EEA, was capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States.

4.

The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) when it decided not to hold The Brink's Company jointly and severally liable with the Appellant (as a successor of BAX Global Ltd. (UK)) for the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct.

5.

The General Court errs in law by distorting the content of the Decision, exceeding the powers given to it under Article 264 TFEU and failing to carry out a balancing exercise in applying the principle of proportionality when concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and the principles of proportionality and that the punishment must fit the offence when calculating the fines.

6.

The General Court errs in law by upholding the Commission’s reduction rates under the 2006 Leniency Notice (3) and distorts the content of the Decision.