—

The applicant submits in that regard that there has been an infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), of Articles 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 and of Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004, since the hearing of 23 April 2018 did not remedy the infringement of essential procedural requirements criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017 in Case C-88/15 P.

—

In that regard the applicant alleges infringement of Article 50 of the Charter since, despite the fact that the judgment of the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court — and, accordingly, the previous decision of the Commission — on procedural grounds, the General Court, nevertheless, ruled on the material facts complained of by the Commission. The Commission should not, therefore, have been able to adopt a new decision based on the same facts.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that, in the light of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and of Article 6 of the ECHR, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for considering, and in any case wrongly considered, that it was not required to assess the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, asking the Court to make that assessment.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR were infringed since the Commission used inspection and sanctioning powers which it no longer had on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings, notwithstanding the prejudice — which was confirmed — to the rights of defence resulting from that unreasonable duration.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to show that it had a legitimate interest in the re-adoption of the decision, which is therefore ultra vires.

—

The applicant submits that Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 is unlawful since it is incompatible with the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time and with the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that some of the conduct ascribed to Ferriere Nord is not anti-competitive and in any event was not proven by the Commission.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the increase of the fine to reflect repeated infringement is unlawful, since the Commission did not raise such aggravated circumstances either in the statement of objections or in any subsequent act in the resumed proceedings, thereby preventing the applicant from defending itself on that point.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that even if the lapse of time between the establishment of the first infringement and the conduct complained of in the contested decision were not considered excessive, it must be borne in mind that, at the date of the re-adoption of the contested decision, 30 years had passed since the first infringement had been established.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that a 50 % increase in the fine for repeated infringement is not justified, not least given the disproportionate duration of the proceedings.

—

The applicant submits that the reduction in the applicant’s fine on the ground of mitigating circumstances is insufficient, since it is proportionately lower than the reduction awarded on the same ground to another undertaking.