- 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-441/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0441
62021TN0441
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
11.10.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 412/13
(Case T-441/21)
(2021/C 412/14)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: UBS Group AG (Zurich, Switzerland), UBS AG (Zurich) (represented by: D. Wood and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Declare the Application admissible and well-founded, and annul the Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 C(2021) 3489 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40324 — European Government Bonds); or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine to € 51,3 million in accordance with UBS’ net value traded methodology; or reduce it to € 60,6 million in accordance with UBS’ adjusted net value traded methodology; or reduce the fine by at least 65 % as a consequence of the errors and inaccuracies identified in the Commission’s methodology; and
—Order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the costs of UBS.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the generally applicable EU rules for calculating the turnover of financial institutions, thus breaching the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has wrongly departed from the Fining Guidelines (1) in a way that was both arbitrary and insufficiently explained, in violation of the relevant case law and UBS’ rights of defence.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning supporting its choice of methodology.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to use the best available figures in calculating UBS’ value of sales.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied its own methodology in a manner which was materially flawed, and is vitiated by a number of material inaccuracies and errors which resulted in the imposition of a disproportionately high fine on UBS.
* Language of the case: English.
Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.