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 62011CN0510

Case C-510/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-151/07: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV v European Commission

SL C 362, 10.12.2011, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/13

Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-151/07: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV v European Commission

(Case C-510/11 P)

2011/C 362/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, D. Paemen, Advocaat, A. Tomtsis, Dikigoros, A. Morfey, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—

set aside in whole the Judgment of the General Court;

—

annul Article 2(2) of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine on Kone Oyj and Kone GmbH, and impose either no fine or a fine at a lower amount than determined in the 21 February 2007 Decision of the Commission relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators) (the ‘Decision’);

—

annul Article 2(4) of the Commission Decision in so far as it imposes a fine on Kone Oyj and Kone BV, and set the fine at a lower amount than determined in the Commission Decision; and

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

 

As regards the infringement in Germany, the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission did not manifestly exceed its margin of appreciation in assessing Kone's contribution to the opening of the investigation and the finding of the infringement in the Decision. The General Court's error of law meant that Kone was wrongly disqualified from immunity under the 2002 Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the ‘2002 Notice’).

 

The General Court also erred in law in holding that the Commission's breach of the 2002 Notice did not violate the principle of legitimate expectations.

 

As regards the infringement in the Netherlands, the General Court erred in law in upholding the Commission's refusal to grant Kone any reduction in the fine under the 2002 Notice, because of Kone's characterisation of the information it provided in its leniency application. As a result, the GC upheld the Commission's decision insofar as it refused to grant Kone any reduction in the fine for the Netherlands cartel.

 

The General Court also erred in law in holding that the Commission did not breach the principle of equal treatment in concluding that Kone's submissions in respect of the Dutch cartel were not comparable to ThyssenKrupp's submissions in respect of the cartel in Belgium.
Top