# C_2013101EN.01001001.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/10

---

Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2012 in Case T-135/09: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission

(Case C-37/13 P)

2013/C 101/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, Avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, A. Rogers, Advocate)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Contested Judgment insofar as it dismissed the second branch of the applicant’s first plea that the geographical scope of the dawn raid decision was overly broad and insufficiently precise; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Contested Judgment insofar as it dismissed the second branch of the applicant’s first plea that the geographical scope of the dawn raid decision was overly broad and insufficiently precise;

| — | on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul the Dawn Raid Decision in so far as its geographic scope was overly broad, insufficiently justified and insufficiently precise, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul the Dawn Raid Decision in so far as its geographic scope was overly broad, insufficiently justified and insufficiently precise, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it orders Nexans to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and order the Commission to pay Nexans’ costs for the proceedings before the General Court in an amount the Court sees fit, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it orders Nexans to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and order the Commission to pay Nexans’ costs for the proceedings before the General Court in an amount the Court sees fit,

| — | order the Commission to pay all of Nexans’ costs in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all of Nexans’ costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the General Court erred in dismissing their application for the annulment of the Dawn Raid Decision insofar as it was insufficiently precise, overly broad in its geographic scope and applied to any suspected agreements and/or concerted practices that ‘probably had a global reach’. The appellants also submit that the General Court erred in its order as to costs.

---