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-419/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0419

62014TN0419

June 12, 2014
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

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/41

(Case T-419/14)

2014/C 282/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant; and/or

Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision;

Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1) in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.

(1) OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p. 1

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