# C_2014303EN.01003302.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/33

---

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Viscas v Commission

(Case T-422/14)

2014/C 303/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viscas Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it finds an infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it finds an infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009;

| — | annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.

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

| 1. | First and second pleas in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant was part of the infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First and second pleas in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant was part of the infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009.

| 2. | Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that Commission’s application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (1) violates the principles of proportionality and equal protection because i) it disproportionately benefits European producers of power cables and ii) it fails to recognize significant differences in the weight in the infringement for different producers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that Commission’s application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (1) violates the principles of proportionality and equal protection because i) it disproportionately benefits European producers of power cables and ii) it fails to recognize significant differences in the weight in the infringement for different producers.

1

| 3. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by allocating sales by the applicant’s shareholders to the applicant for purposes of determining the fine to be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by allocating sales by the applicant’s shareholders to the applicant for purposes of determining the fine to be imposed.

| 4. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly increased the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account based on the combined market share of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly increased the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account based on the combined market share of the parties.

| 5. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to apply a reduction for mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to apply a reduction for mitigating circumstances.

| 6. | Eighth plea in law by which the applicant calls on the Court to rely on its unlimited jurisdiction and significantly reduce the fine. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Eighth plea in law by which the applicant calls on the Court to rely on its unlimited jurisdiction and significantly reduce the fine.

---

(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

1

---