This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0098
Case C-98/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
Case C-98/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
Case C-98/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
IO C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 18–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.4.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 121/18 |
Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
(Case C-98/17 P)
(2017/C 121/26)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France (represented by: J.K. de Pree, advocaat, T.M. Snoep, advocaat, A.M. ter Haar, advocaat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
annul the decision in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and/or |
|
— |
annul or reduce the fines imposed on Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs in first instance and on appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following main pleas in law and arguments:
|
— |
The General Court erred in law by applying a wrong legal standard in establishing a restriction of competition by object. |
|
— |
In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by exceeding its unlimited jurisdiction. |
|
— |
In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by breaching its obligation to state reasons. |
|
— |
The General Court applied a clearly and manifestly incorrect assessment of the existing evidence in the file, resulting in a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence, in finding that the alleged common object finds support in other evidence. |
|
— |
The General Court erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard and by distorting the clear sense of the evidence by considering that Philips participated in a single and continuous infringement as a whole and, as such, could be held liable for it. |
|
— |
The General Court erred in law by misapplying the principle of proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction by rejecting Philips' plea that the gravity factor applied was disproportionate to the infringement and Philips' role therein. |