EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-700/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12/07/2019 in Case T-8/16: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0700

62019CN0700

September 20, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
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

11.11.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/52

(Case C-700/19 P)

(2019/C 383/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) (represented by: M. Bay, avvocato, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado, A. Aresu, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the Judgment of the General Court under appeal;

annul the Commission decision in case COMP/39.639 – Optical Disk Drives at issue in so far as it concerns the appellants;

annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants in that decision;

order the Commission to bear the entirety of the costs at first instance and on appeal; and

make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging errors in law as regards limbs one, two and three of the first plea at first instance, consisting of infringements of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of defence.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law in stating the legal standard for the existence of a single and continuous infringement.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence and erroneous legal standard.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with essential procedural requirements; full inadequacy of the statement of reasons supporting the rejection of the second plea, first part (lack of jurisdiction), at first instance; and errors in the legal test governing the admissibility of evidence.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia