# C_2018427EN.01002901.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/29

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Nexans France, Nexans against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-449/14: Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case C-606/18 P)

(2018/C 427/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans France, Nexans (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell, A. Rogers, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018 in Nexans France & Nexans v Commission (Case T-449/14, EU:T:2018:456); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018 in Nexans France & Nexans v Commission (Case T-449/14, EU:T:2018:456);

| — | refer the matter back to the General Court to decide on its action for the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it concerns the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the matter back to the General Court to decide on its action for the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it concerns the appellants;

| — | reduce the fines imposed on the appellants by an amount that corresponds to a reduced gravity factor; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fines imposed on the appellants by an amount that corresponds to a reduced gravity factor; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) as regards the copying of unexamined electronic data, in that the copying of unexamined electronic data fell outside the Commission’s powers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) as regards the copying of unexamined electronic data, in that the copying of unexamined electronic data fell outside the Commission’s powers;

| 2. | Second, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2) of Regulation 1/2003 as regards the continued inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels, in that the Commission’s powers under that provision are limited to the premises of the undertakings in question; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2) of Regulation 1/2003 as regards the continued inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels, in that the Commission’s powers under that provision are limited to the premises of the undertakings in question;

| 3. | Third, an error of law in finding that the Commission did not exceed the terms of the inspection decision, in that the inspection decision should properly be understood as specifying that the inspection could only take place in all premises controlled by the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, an error of law in finding that the Commission did not exceed the terms of the inspection decision, in that the inspection decision should properly be understood as specifying that the inspection could only take place in all premises controlled by the appellants;

| 4. | Fourth, an error of law as regards the lack of effects of the infringement, in that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, and itself reduce the gravity factor to take account of the fact that the majority of sales covered by the contested decision were in fact unaffected by the infringement; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth, an error of law as regards the lack of effects of the infringement, in that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, and itself reduce the gravity factor to take account of the fact that the majority of sales covered by the contested decision were in fact unaffected by the infringement; and

| 5. | Fifth, a manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning as regards the additional extra 2 % for the ‘European configuration’, in that no reasons were put forward why the European configuration caused additional distortion of competition in the EEA to the Europe-Asia configuration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth, a manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning as regards the additional extra 2 % for the ‘European configuration’, in that no reasons were put forward why the European configuration caused additional distortion of competition in the EEA to the Europe-Asia configuration.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

---