4.5.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/18

—

set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10, and, consequently:

—

in the alternative, set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10 and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits in the light of the guidance provided by the Court of Justice;

—

in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision by reason of the excessive length of time taken for the General Court to process Case T-70/10;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

—

the General Court erred in law in finding that no infringement of the principle of collegiality took place when the contested decision was adopted;

—

the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in finding that it was permissible for the Commission to adopt the contested decision without sending Feralpi a statement of objections and without providing that company with a guarantee of being able to exercise its rights of the defence;

—

the General Court infringed Article 6 ECHR and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) in finding that the period between the delivery of the judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case T-77/03 and the adoption of the contested decision had not been of an excessive duration;

—

the General Court misapplied Article 65 ECSC and, in the present case, the concepts of agreements and concerted practices referred to in that provision and the related principles regarding the burden of proof in finding that both a single and continuous agreement on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars and Feralpi’s involvement in that agreement had been established for the periods 1989-1992 and 1993-1995. In that context, the General Court failed to take into account the particular nature of the ECSC legal framework applicable to the concrete reinforcing bars sector. The General Court also manifestly distorted the meaning and scope of the essential evidence adduced. In this respect, the statement of reasons is both inadequate and illogical;

—

the General Court infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in deciding not to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to rectify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the precise importance of Feralpi and the other companies involved in the agreement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine;

—

the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as Feralpi’s case was not heard within a reasonable time.