Appeal brought on 17 April 2014 by AC-Treuhand AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 February 2014 in Case T-27/10 AC-Treuhand AG v European Commission

(Case C-194/14 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: AC-Treuhand AG (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.    set aside the judgment under appeal;

2.    annul Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 (Case COMP/38.589 – Heat stabilisers), in so far as it affects the appellant.

in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the appellant by Article 2(17) and (38) of that decision;

3.    in the alternative to the second head of claim, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

4.    in any event, order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.    The appeal is against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 February 2014 in Case T-27/10. In the judgment, the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 27 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 – Heat stabilisers).

2.    The appellant raises four grounds of appeal:

3.    By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by extensively interpreting Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) in breach of the principle of legality (nullem crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege) enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights, ‘the Charter’) in such a way that the level of certainty and foreseeability of the facts of Article 81 EC required in accordance with the rule of law is no longer fulfilled in the present case. The General Court thus infringed Article 81 EC and Article 49(1) of the Charter.

4.    By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that, in rejecting the fourth plea, the General Court erred in law inasmuch as it disregarded the limitations imposed on the Commission’s discretion to set fines in the present case by the principle of legality (Article 49(1) of the Charter) and the principle of equal treatment.

5.    By the third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. The appellant submitted that, on the basis of the methods outlined in the 2006 guidelines, its fines were to be determined on the basis of the fee received for the performance of services in connection with the infringements and should not have been set at a flat rate. The General Court wrongly rejected that submission and considered the amount of the fines to be reasonable.

6.    By the fourth ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 261 TFEU, Article 23(3) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 due to the insufficient and legally erroneous exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction. In addition, in the context of the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the General Court itself infringed the principle of legality (Article 49(1) of the Charter), the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality.