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 T-344/18: Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0344

62018TN0344

June 4, 2018
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

(Case T-344/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Rubycon Corp. (Ina City, Japan) and Rubycon Holdings Co. Ltd (Ina City) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, A. Federle and M. Relange, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40136 — Capacitors — as far as it relates to Rubycon, in particular Article 1(h), Article 2(k), Article 2(l) and Article 4;

order a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on Rubycon under Article 2 of the contested decision to a level that it is not discriminatory and Rubycon’s exceptional level of cooperation is rewarded;

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s refusal to grant Rubycon the benefit of ‘partial immunity’ under point 26 of the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1) for the increased gravity of the infringement.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently motivated and vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s conclusion not to depart from the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) and not to grant Rubycon an additional fine reduction, in breach of the EU law principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence.

*

(1) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17).

(2) 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).

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