22.2.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/26

Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-375/10 Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission

(Case C-611/13 P)

2014/C 52/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl., Hansa Belgium, Hansa Austria GmbH (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann and S. Cappellari, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

I.

set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-375/10 Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v Commission and make a definitive determination as follows:

1.

annul the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010, notified to the appellants on 30 June 2010, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as it concerns the appellants;

in the alternative,

reduce the amount of the fine;

2.

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

II.

in the further alternative,

set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants first of all allege infringement by the General Court of the EU-law principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. In particular, the General Court failed to take into account the fact that the recast version of the Commission’s Guidelines for fines in 2006 brought with it a radical change to the general method of calculation, particularly for undertakings with a limited range of products and services. As a consequence of its legally defective approach, the General Court failed to carry out its comprehensive duty of verification with regard to the setting of the fine by the respondent, or alternatively did so only in a legally deficient manner.

In addition, the appellants allege that the General Court provided insufficient reasons for its comments on the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. In particular, the General Court failed entirely to examine the leading judgment of the Eighth Chamber in Case T-211/08 (1) and the evidently changed view of the Commission in its order in the proceedings in COMP/39452, although the appellants had set out detailed submissions on this issue at the hearing.

Finally, the appellants allege infringement of the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In assessing the Commission’s action in not granting a reduction in the fine in its decision, contrary to the assurance which it had given during the administrative procedure, the General Court failed to have regard for the overriding significance which is attached to loyal cooperation with the Commission within the context of its notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

(1)  Judgment of 16 June 2011, Putters International v European Commission [2011] ECR II-3729.