# C_2014282EN.01004801.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/48

---

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Hitachi Metals v Commission

(Case T-448/14)

2014/C 282/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hitachi Metals Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: P. Crowther and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the 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’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the 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’);

| — | In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on J-Power Systems and the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on J-Power Systems and the applicant; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled because the Commission has failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled because the Commission has failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the Decision fails to prove to the required legal standard the involvement of J-Power Systems Corporation over the entire duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the Decision fails to prove to the required legal standard the involvement of J-Power Systems Corporation over the entire duration of the infringement.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on J-Power Systems Corporation, as such fine does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and J-Power Systems Corporation’s substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on J-Power Systems Corporation, as such fine does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and J-Power Systems Corporation’s substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled in its entirety to the extent that it relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans. Such evidence is essential to the Commission’s findings and in particular to the establishment of a single and continuous nature of the infringement as well as to the establishment of an allocation between European companies of projects within the European Economic Area (EEA). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled in its entirety to the extent that it relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans. Such evidence is essential to the Commission’s findings and in particular to the establishment of a single and continuous nature of the infringement as well as to the establishment of an allocation between European companies of projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

---