# C_2014282EN.01004501.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/45

---

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case T-439/14)

2014/C 282/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang, Republic of Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Articles 1(11) and 2(t) of 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’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Articles 1(11) and 2(t) of 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’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

| — | In the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(t) of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(t) of the Decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

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 fails to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the applicant participated in the single continuous infringement, as the Decision relies on incorrect reasoning and adduces insufficient evidence of the applicant’s participation in the infringement in violation of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, the Decision fails to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the applicant participated in the single continuous infringement, as the Decision relies on incorrect reasoning and adduces insufficient evidence of the applicant’s participation in the infringement in violation of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of the presumption of innocence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s application of point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the Fining Guidelines and infringes the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations because:






  — | it fails to comply with the Commission’s Fining Guidelines without objective justification, by treating UG and SM power cables separately for the purpose of allocating sales in the EEA to the applicant and by failing to adequately reflect the relative weight of the applicant in the infringement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s application of point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the Fining Guidelines and infringes the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations because:

—

it fails to comply with the Commission’s Fining Guidelines without objective justification, by treating UG and SM power cables separately for the purpose of allocating sales in the EEA to the applicant and by failing to adequately reflect the relative weight of the applicant in the infringement;

| — | it produces a discriminatory advantage on producers (including the applicant) that only produced UG power cables; and |
| --- | --- |

—

it produces a discriminatory advantage on producers (including the applicant) that only produced UG power cables; and

| — | it leads to a disproportionately large allocation of sales in the EEA to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

it leads to a disproportionately large allocation of sales in the EEA to the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, point 20 of the Fining Guidelines and the principle of proportionality by failing properly to have regard to the gravity of the infringement in fixing the applicant’s amount of the fine by failing to take account of:






  — | the fact that the applicant only produced UG power cables; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, point 20 of the Fining Guidelines and the principle of proportionality by failing properly to have regard to the gravity of the infringement in fixing the applicant’s amount of the fine by failing to take account of:

—

the fact that the applicant only produced UG power cables;

| — | the applicant’s lack of knowledge about the SM part and certain key elements of the UG part of the infringement; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s lack of knowledge about the SM part and certain key elements of the UG part of the infringement; and

| — | the applicant’s competitive conduct in the EEA and in the export territories and its disruption of the UG part of the cartel. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s competitive conduct in the EEA and in the export territories and its disruption of the UG part of the cartel.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in failing to grant the applicant a mitigating circumstance reduction higher than 11 %. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in failing to grant the applicant a mitigating circumstance reduction higher than 11 %.

---