# C_2014282EN.01004701.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/47

---

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — nkt cables and NKT Holding v Commission

(Case T-447/14)

2014/C 282/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: nkt cables GmbH (Köln, Germany) and NKT Holding A/S (Brøndby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim 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’); |
| --- | --- |

—

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’);

| — | In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the fine imposed on them; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the fine imposed on them;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs;

| — | Take any other measures that it considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any other measures that it considers appropriate.

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 has infringed the applicants' rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing to allow them to access potentially exculpatory evidence received by the Commission after the notification of its Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing to allow them to access potentially exculpatory evidence received by the Commission after the notification of its Statement of Objections.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Commission wrongly defined the territorial scope of the single and continuous infringement and erroneously applied the effects criterion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Commission wrongly defined the territorial scope of the single and continuous infringement and erroneously applied the effects criterion.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision contained manifest errors of assessment in relation to the conduct in which NKT Cables was found to have been involved, and in relation to the conclusion that such conduct proved NKT Cables' participation in or awareness of all activities constituting the single and continuous infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision contained manifest errors of assessment in relation to the conduct in which NKT Cables was found to have been involved, and in relation to the conclusion that such conduct proved NKT Cables' participation in or awareness of all activities constituting the single and continuous infringement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its findings as to the duration of NKT Cables' participation in the single and continuous infringement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its findings as to the duration of NKT Cables' participation in the single and continuous infringement.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the level of the fine which was imposed on the Applicants was unjustifiably and disproportionately high. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the level of the fine which was imposed on the Applicants was unjustifiably and disproportionately high.

---