# C_2014282EN.01004401.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/44

---

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14)

2014/C 282/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable (Montereau Fault Yonne, France); and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---