Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4145

(Case C-374/25 P)

(C/2025/4145)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nomura International plc, Nomura Holdings, Inc. (represented by: W. Howard, avocat, N. Seay, S. Whitfield, Solicitors, M. Demetriou, BL, C. Thomas, BL)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside (or, if appropriate, partially set aside) the judgment under appeal to the extent that it upholds the imposition of (a) liability and (b) penalty on the appellants; and

—make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give final judgment in this matter by annulling (or, if appropriate, partially annulling) the Decision of the Commission in case AT.40324 (1), and/or exercising its own jurisdiction to impose a lesser and proportionate fine; or

—alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas and arguments not already assessed; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs, if it gives final judgment in the matter, or to reserve the costs of the present proceedings, if it refers the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on four pleas in law in support of their appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law as regards the General Court's failure to take into account its finding that the appellants did not participate in certain aspects of conduct, in a manner consistent with applicable case law.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law as regards the General Court's failure to take its findings in relation to conduct occurring on the date that the appelants’ participation is considered to have commenced into account in assessing the duration of the appellants’ alleged infringement, an approach inconsistent with fundamental treaty principles, including that of equal treatment.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the context of the General Court's unlawful exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction resulting in an excessive fine being imposed which failed to respect the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges an error of law as regards the General Court's failure to address all of the appellants’ pleas in law

—

(1)

OJ 2021, C 418, p. 11.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4145/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—