- 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-422/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Viscas v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0422
62014TN0422
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
8.9.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 303/33
(Case T-422/14)
2014/C 303/42
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Viscas Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision insofar as it finds an infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009;
—annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed; and
—order the Commission to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
1.First and second pleas in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant was part of the infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009.
2.Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that Commission’s application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the principles of proportionality and equal protection because i) it disproportionately benefits European producers of power cables and ii) it fails to recognize significant differences in the weight in the infringement for different producers.
3.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by allocating sales by the applicant’s shareholders to the applicant for purposes of determining the fine to be imposed.
4.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly increased the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account based on the combined market share of the parties.
5.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to apply a reduction for mitigating circumstances.
6.Eighth plea in law by which the applicant calls on the Court to rely on its unlimited jurisdiction and significantly reduce the fine.
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).