# C_2012343EN.01001902.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/19 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission

(Case T-409/12)

2012/C 343/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Denton, J. Vyavaharkar and R. Browne, Solicitors, and K. Haegeman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4381 final of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines), in so far as it concerns the applicant; or, in the alternative, |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant therein; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine and has breached the principle of sound administration. | — | the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine and has breached the principle of sound administration. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine and has breached the principle of sound administration. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in calculating the multiplier applicable to the applicant and has infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in calculating the multiplier. | — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in calculating the multiplier applicable to the applicant and has infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in calculating the multiplier. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in calculating the multiplier applicable to the applicant and has infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in calculating the multiplier. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in assessing the fine of the applicant in the same way as it assessed the fine to be imposed on the European producers. | — | the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in assessing the fine of the applicant in the same way as it assessed the fine to be imposed on the European producers. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in assessing the fine of the applicant in the same way as it assessed the fine to be imposed on the European producers. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission erred in failing to take into account economic and technical evidence when assessing the impact of the applicant’s behaviour and in calculating the applicant’s fine. | — | the Commission erred in failing to take into account economic and technical evidence when assessing the impact of the applicant’s behaviour and in calculating the applicant’s fine. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the Commission erred in failing to take into account economic and technical evidence when assessing the impact of the applicant’s behaviour and in calculating the applicant’s fine. | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission erred in determining the duration of the alleged cartel. | — | the Commission erred in determining the duration of the alleged cartel. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission erred in determining the duration of the alleged cartel. | | |

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission erred in assessing the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. | — | the Commission erred in assessing the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission erred in assessing the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. | | |

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in deciding the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company. | — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in deciding the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in deciding the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company. | | |

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission erred in its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. | — | the Commission erred in its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission erred in its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. | | |

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that
—
the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons with respect to its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D. | — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons with respect to its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons with respect to its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D. | | |

---