- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-140/07: Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0140
62007TN0140
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 155/28
(Case T-140/07)
(2007/C 155/54)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicants respectfully ask the Court to
—annul the contested decision in its entirety; and
—order the Commission to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the applicants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, to provide specific information and documents related to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.
The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to provide information under the sole custody and control of legal entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is, hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addressing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby compelling them to provide documents and information under the sole control and possession of their parent company located outside the EU territory.
Precisely, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In addition, the applicants contend that the contested decision violates the general principles of international law of territoriality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of States by allegedly asserting enforcement jurisdiction over a company located outside the EU.
* * *
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules in competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).