- 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-438/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0438
62014TN0438
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
25.8.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/44
(Case T-438/14)
2014/C 282/58
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Silec Cable (Montereau Fault Yonne, France); and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Set aside Article 1 of the Commission Decision C (2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case COMP/AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) as it pertains to Silec Cable and General Cable;
—In the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Silec Cable and General Cable in light of the arguments put forward in support of the application;
—Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.
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 committed an error of law and did not satisfy its burden of proof under Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1/2003.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law and infringed the principles of burden of proof and presumption of innocence in asserting that Silec Cable was under a positive obligation to publicly distance itself from the alleged cartel.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment in concluding that Silec Cable directly participated in the alleged cartel as of 30 November 2005.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment in treating Silec Cable differently and inconsistently with the way it treated other recipients of the Decision.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that, at a minimum, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment and proportionality in not characterizing Silec Cable as a fringe player.