Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by Silec Cable SAS, General Cable Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-438/14: Silec Cable, General Cable v Commission
(Case C-599/18 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Silec Cable SAS, General Cable Corp. (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, C. Renner, Rechtsanwältin)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
annul the judgment under appeal;
set aside Article 1 of the Decision1 as it pertains to Silec Cable and General Cable;
in the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Silec Cable and General Cable in light of the arguments put forward in support of the present appeal;
in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;
order the European Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
With their first plea, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in failing to correctly apply the rules relating to evidence and distorted the evidence before it regarding appellant Silec's participation in the alleged infringement.
The General Court incorrectly used the open and public distancing test to reverse the burden of proof for establishing the appellant Silec's alleged infringement. The appellants submit that the General Court also erred in law in exclusively relying on the subjective perception of other participants in the alleged infringement to prove appellant Silec's participation. The appellants further consider that the General Court distorted the evidence before it, and also violated the obligation of professional secrecy (Article 339 TFEU), when finding that the appellant Silec participated in the alleged infringement.
With their second plea, the appellants contend that the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment when refusing to qualify the appellant Silec's involvement in the alleged infringement as that of a "fringe player."
The appellants submit that the General Court unlawfully took account of Safran/Sagem/Sagem Communications' behaviour when assessing the individual involvement of the appellant Silec for the purpose of assessing the amount of the fine. The appellants submit that the General Court itself moreover provides manifestly contradictory reasoning in this regard. The appellants further contend that the General Court compares the wrong factual situations when concluding that the Commission does not discriminate against the appellant Silec when refusing to qualify it as a fringe player.
____________
1 Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10).