Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015CN0510

    Case C-510/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-398/10 Fapricela v Commission

    IO C 381, 16.11.2015, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.11.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 381/25

    Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-398/10 Fapricela v Commission

    (Case C-510/15 P)

    (2015/C 381/27)

    Language of the case: Portuguese

    Parties

    Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, advogados)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

    (i)

    adjust the volume of sales taken into account in the calculation of the fine;

    (ii)

    set aside the judgment under appeal, in part, in so far as it relates to:

    —

    the volume of sales to be taken into account;

    —

    the burden of proof relating to the duration of the participation in the cartel;

    —

    the attribution of a greater degree of gravity of the infringement compared with Fundia;

    —

    the allocation of an excessive additional amount;

    (iii)

    and accordingly, adjust the amount of the fine, specifically by:

    —

    adjusting the volume of sales;

    —

    adjusting the duration of the infringement;

    —

    adjusting the reference year for calculating the fine;

    —

    adjusting the degree of gravity of the infringement, by attributing a degree of gravity of 16 % (equal to that attributed to Fundia); and

    —

    adjusting the additional amount;

    (iv)

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    a)

    The volume of sales, taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the penalty and upheld by the General Court, is tainted by clear errors which need to be adjusted.

    b)

    The General Court improperly allocated the burden of proof and, in that respect, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence in the examination of the facts.

    c)

    The General Court did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons and infringed the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of the penalty, resulting in a finding of an excessive degree of gravity of the infringement.

    d)

    The General Court infringed the principle of proportionality in its determination of the additional amount for the purpose of deterrence, which affected, inter alia, the proportionality of the penalty.
    Top