Appeal brought on 2 April 2014 by SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 23 January 2014 in Case T-384/09 SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-154/14 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH (represented by: Dr. A. Birnstiel and Dr. S. Janka, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gigaset AG, European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal in so far as the appellants’ claims were thereby dismissed, and grant in its entirety the form of order sought at first instance;

in the alternative, set aside in part the judgment under appeal;

in the further alternative, reduce, as the Court sees fit, the fines imposed on the appellants under Article 2(f) and (g) of the European Commission’s decision on fines of 22 July 2009;

in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

in respect of points 1 to 4 above, order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants raise, in essence, four grounds of appeal:

The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law and should be set aside because it disregards the fact that the respondent infringed fundamental procedural rights of the appellants, such as the right to a fair hearing, in the proceedings relating to the fines. By upholding the respondent’s assessment the General Court also acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and of the prohibition against the anticipatory assessment of evidence.

Further, the General Court disregards the fact that the respondent’s decision and the fines set in various joint liability arrangements represents a misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and a breach of the respondent’s obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, so that the General Court also reached a decision that is wrong in law in its application of the concept of an economic unit and as regards the scope of the legal obligation to state reasons.

By its judgment, and in upholding the respondent’s decision, the General Court also acted in breach of the principles that penalties must be clear and that they must be appropriate to the offender and to the offence.

Lastly, the appellants complain that the General Court erred in law in its assessment that the appellants’ supplementary submission in the proceedings was new and therefore inadmissible even though the appellants had already raised corresponding complaints in their application.