Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Nichicon Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-342/18, Nichicon Corporation v Commission

(Case C-757/21 P)

(2022/C 64/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nichicon Corporation (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, F. Neumayr, G. Fussenegger, H. Kühnert, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In essence, the Appellant relies on 4 pleas in law.

First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural requirement due to missing authentication of the judgment under appeal

The judgment under appeal, was not signed by hand by the responsible judges. It therefore lacks the necessary authentication. The missing signatures must be assessed as an essential procedural requirement was infringed. The judgment under appeal must be therefore annulled.

Second plea in law: errors in reviewing the Commission's findings of fact

The General Court's analysis of the pleas raised by the Appellant at first instance is vitiated by distortions of evidence, errors of law, and insufficient reasoning.

Third plea in Law: errors of law in reviewing the Commission's findings regarding the existence of and the Appellant's liability for participation in a single and continuous infringement

First, the General Court provided insufficient reasons for and erred in law in rejecting the plea that the Commission had not established the Appellant's liability for bilateral and trilateral meetings between other undertakings concerned to the requisite legal standard. Secondly, the General Court erred in law in rejecting the Appellant's plea that the Commission had failed to establish a continuous infringement.

Fourth plea in Law: manifest errors of assessment in setting the fine

First, the General Court errs in law by taking as a basis the value of sales invoiced to the EEA instead of the value of sales shipped / consigned to the EEA. Furthermore, by determining the gravity multiplier with 16 %, the General Court sets an insufficient legal standard by not taking account of the individual circumstances of the Appellant. Secondly, the General Court insufficiently considered mitigating factors in terms of the absolute amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant being disproportionate. The General Court hereby, inter alia, infringes the principle of proportionality and equal treatment by failing to duly reflect the Applicant’s limited participation. Further, the General Court errs in law by rejecting to accept the Appellant’s negligence and competitive conduct as mitigating factors.