Appeal brought on 8 May 2014 by InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-91/11: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-231/14 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, R. Burton, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the fine imposed by the Contested Decision on InnoLux based on the value of intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan;

annul the Commission’s decision in so far as it imposes a fine on InnoLux based on the value of intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan;

accordingly reduce the fine imposed on InnoLux to €173 million; and

order the Commission to bear all of the costs of these proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. First plea: the General Court erred in law by ruling that intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan come within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by the mere fact that computer monitors into which the LCD panels are incorporated as components in the factories in question are sold in the EEA by the appellant.

This plea is based on the following grounds:

a. The finding of infringement in the Contested Decision only covers deliveries in the EEA of LCD panels, whether sold to third parties or supplied intra-group, and makes no distinction between intra-group deliveries by vertically-integrated cartel participants who form a single undertaking with their related purchaser and those who do not;

b. The use of the concept of so-called “direct EEA sales through transformed products” is inconsistent with the rationale underlying Europa Carton to treat intra-group deliveries in exactly the same way as sales to third parties;

c. It is inconsistent with the Wood Pulp I implementation doctrine to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to deliveries of LCD panels that take place outside the EEA;

d. The concept of so-called “direct EEA sales through transformed products” leads to the unlawful exclusion from the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA of transactions concerning LCD panels which take place and restrict competition within the EEA, on the basis of a reasoning which was expressly rejected by this Court in Commercial Solvents;

e. The extra-territorial application of EU competition law resulting from the use of the concept of so-called “EEA direct sales through transformed products” gives rise to a risk of double jeopardy for undertakings and jurisdictional conflict with other competition authorities.

2. Second plea: the General Court erred in law by ruling that the applicability of the category of so-called “direct EEA sales through transformed products” to the intra-group deliveries of LCD panels of each of the addressees of the Commission’s decision was assessed by the Commission “on the basis of the same objective criteria”, while rejecting as inadmissible all pleas raised by the appellant contesting the relevance, objectivity and coherence of the criterion used, namely whether they formed a single undertaking with their related purchasers.

This plea is based on the following grounds:

a. Whether or not the vertically-integrated addressees of the Contested Decision form a single undertaking with their related purchasers is not an “objective difference” justifying the differential treatment of their respective intra-group deliveries;

b. The principle of legality cannot be invoked to dismiss the appellant’s plea to have its intra-group deliveries of LCD panels treated on the basis of the same method as that applied to the intra-group deliveries of LCD panels of LG Display and AUO since that method is perfectly legal.