Communication: new case No. 0251 of 2022

IDENTIFIER
62022CN0251
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
2
REFERENCED
0
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: new case

Judgment



30.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/35


Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-799/17, Scania and Others v Commission

(Case C-251/22 P)

(2022/C 213/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH (represented by: D. Arts, advocaat, F. Miotto, avocate, N. De Backer, advocate, C.E. Schillemans, advocaat, C. Langenius, S. Falkner, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under the appeal;

annul, in whole or in part, Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) and / or cancel or reduce the relevant fines;

or, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, and

order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on the following four grounds of appeal:

1.

In their first ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by failing to acknowledge that the Commission, by adopting the Settlement Decision (1) and thereafter continuing its investigation against Scania by relying on the same case team, infringed Article (41)1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

2.

In their second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the geographic scope of the German level conduct as extending to the whole of the EEA, whereas it was limited to Germany.

3.

In their third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the series of acts at the three different levels as a single infringement.

4.

In subsidiary order, in their fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by upholding a fine in relation to conduct that is time-barred.


(1)  Commission Decision C(2016) 4673 final of 19.07.2016 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.39824 — Trucks).



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.