This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0231
Case C-231/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2014 by InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-91/11: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission
Case C-231/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2014 by InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-91/11: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission
Case C-231/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2014 by InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-91/11: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission
OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 20–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.7.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 212/20 |
Appeal brought on 8 May 2014 by InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-91/11: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission
(Case C-231/14 P)
2014/C 212/23
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, R. Burton, Solicitor)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the fine imposed by the Contested Decision on InnoLux based on the value of intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan; |
— |
annul the Commission’s decision in so far as it imposes a fine on InnoLux based on the value of intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan; |
— |
accordingly reduce the fine imposed on InnoLux to €173 million; and |
— |
order the Commission to bear all of the costs of these proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
1. |
First plea: the General Court erred in law by ruling that intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan come within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by the mere fact that computer monitors into which the LCD panels are incorporated as components in the factories in question are sold in the EEA by the appellant. This plea is based on the following grounds:
|
2. |
Second plea: the General Court erred in law by ruling that the applicability of the category of so-called ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’ to the intra-group deliveries of LCD panels of each of the addressees of the Commission’s decision was assessed by the Commission ‘on the basis of the same objective criteria’, while rejecting as inadmissible all pleas raised by the appellant contesting the relevance, objectivity and coherence of the criterion used, namely whether they formed a single undertaking with their related purchasers. This plea is based on the following grounds:
|