Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62010CN0386

Case C-386/10 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2010 by Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-21/05: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission

IO C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/21

Appeal brought on 30 July 2010 by Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-21/05: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission

(Case C-386/10 P)

()

(2010/C 288/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon (represented by: I. Forrester QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

Set aside or annul in whole or in part the Judgment of the General Court insofar as it rejects Halcor's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision;

—

Annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Halcor or take such other action as justice may require; and

—

Award Halcor the costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

(a)

The General Court erred in applying a limited standard of judicial review. The Court did not consider the basic question of whether the fine imposed on Halcor was appropriate, fair and proportionate in relation to the gravity and duration of the unlawful conduct;

(b)

The General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment. Although the Court correctly held that the Commission had infringed the principle of equal treatment by treating Halcor and the other companies in an identical manner, without such treatment being objectively justified, it failed to respect that principle thereafter;

(c)

The General Court's adaptation of the fine imposed on Halcor was irrational and arbitrary; and

(d)

The contested judgment contains no reasoning adequate to explain the fine imposed on Halcor.
Top