This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0466
Case C-466/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
Case C-466/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
Case C-466/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
IO C 263, 5.8.2019, p. 36–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.8.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 263/36 |
Appeal brought on 18 June 2019 by Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-371/17: Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
(Case C-466/19 P)
(2019/C 263/41)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm Europe, Inc. (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, advogado, M. Davilla, dikigoros)
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 Commission Decision C(2017) 2258 final of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (Predation) (the ‘Decision’); |
— |
in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice, and |
— |
order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law: the General Court failed to address arguments raised by the appellant.
Second plea in law: the finding that the Decision was adequately reasoned is based on manifest errors of fact, of law and inadequate reasoning.
Third plea in law: the finding that the information requested by the Decision was necessary is based on manifest errors of law and fact, a distortion of the evidence, inadequate reasoning, and a failure to consider all the relevant evidence.
Fourth plea in law: the finding that the information requested by the Decision was proportionate is based on manifest errors of fact, a distortion of the evidence, and inadequate reasoning.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court misapplied the rules governing the burden of proof regarding alleged infringements of Article 102 TFEU.
Sixth plea in law: the General Court made findings that infringe the right to avoid self-incrimination.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).