# C_2014282EN.01004601.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/46

---

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission

(Case T-446/14)

2014/C 282/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd (Anyang-Si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

| — | In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant, and;

| — | Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission could not assert jurisdiction over the applicant’s conduct failed to demonstrate that the applicant participated in an infringement that it can sanction under Article 101 of the TFEU, since the object of its alleged anti-competitive behavior did not concern the EEA market and its alleged involvement in the anti-competitive behavior could not have and did not have any effect on trade in the EEA market. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission could not assert jurisdiction over the applicant’s conduct failed to demonstrate that the applicant participated in an infringement that it can sanction under Article 101 of the TFEU, since the object of its alleged anti-competitive behavior did not concern the EEA market and its alleged involvement in the anti-competitive behavior could not have and did not have any effect on trade in the EEA market.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously relied on evidence obtained at the inspections held at certain companies, in view of the illegality of the inspection decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously relied on evidence obtained at the inspections held at certain companies, in view of the illegality of the inspection decisions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined the duration of the alleged infringement with respect to the applicant, thereby violating inter alia the principles of in dubio pro reo and non-discrimination and failing to produce the relevant evidence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined the duration of the alleged infringement with respect to the applicant, thereby violating inter alia the principles of in dubio pro reo and non-discrimination and failing to produce the relevant evidence.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the different approach taken by the Commission with respect to the applicant and other companies for which similar evidence was available in the file violates the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality vis-à-vis the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the different approach taken by the Commission with respect to the applicant and other companies for which similar evidence was available in the file violates the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality vis-à-vis the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s determination of the fine to be imposed on the applicant violated the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality as laid down inter alia in Article 5 TEU, as well as Article 49 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Article 23(3) 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, the Guidelines (including point 18 and point 37 thereof) and the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s determination of the fine to be imposed on the applicant violated the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality as laid down inter alia in Article 5 TEU, as well as Article 49 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Article 23(3) 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, the Guidelines (including point 18 and point 37 thereof) and the principle of legitimate expectations.

---