# C_2021431EN.01005401.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/54

---

Action brought on 8 September 2021 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-561/21)

(2021/C 431/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom), HSBC Bank plc (London), HSBC Continental Europe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Demetriou and D. Bailey, Barristers, M. Simpson, Solicitor, C. Angeli, M. Giner Asins and C. Chevreste, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the Commission decision C(2021) 4600 final of 28 June 2021, notified on 29 June 2021 (‘the Contested Decision’) amending Commission decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7. December 2016 (the ‘2016 Decision’) (AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (‘EIRDs’)) and Article 2(b) of the 2016 Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the Commission decision C(2021) 4600 final of 28 June 2021, notified on 29 June 2021 (‘the Contested Decision’) amending Commission decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7. December 2016 (the ‘2016 Decision’) (AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (‘EIRDs’)) and Article 2(b) of the 2016 Decision;

| — | in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of the applicants’ costs.

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 Contested Decision was adopted outside the limitation period of 10 years that ran from the end of the infringement on 27 March 2007. The defendant’s power to re-impose a fine on the applicants was accordingly time-barred. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted outside the limitation period of 10 years that ran from the end of the infringement on 27 March 2007. The defendant’s power to re-impose a fine on the applicants was accordingly time-barred.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and/or its assessment when it calculated the applicants’ value of sales on the basis of discounted cash receipts. The applicants allege that discounted cash receipts are an arbitrary and inappropriate measure of the value of sales in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector. In particular, discounted cash receipts do not reflect either the economic significance of the infringement or the size of HSBC’s contribution to it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and/or its assessment when it calculated the applicants’ value of sales on the basis of discounted cash receipts. The applicants allege that discounted cash receipts are an arbitrary and inappropriate measure of the value of sales in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector. In particular, discounted cash receipts do not reflect either the economic significance of the infringement or the size of HSBC’s contribution to it.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment and/or gave inadequate reasons for the rate of the reduction factor that it used to calculate the applicants’ discounted cash receipts. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment and/or gave inadequate reasons for the rate of the reduction factor that it used to calculate the applicants’ discounted cash receipts.

| 4. | Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the gravity of the applicants’ infringement and the imposition and size of the additional amount. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the gravity of the applicants’ infringement and the imposition and size of the additional amount.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on the applicants is disproportionately high. In particular, the applicants claim that the defendant erred in its assessment of the mitigating circumstances that relate to the applicants’ infringement. The applicants further allege that the defendant gave insufficient weight to the fact that the applicants’ participation in the single continuous infringement was both less extensive and less serious than found by the 2016 Decision as held by the General Court in Case T-105/17 HSBC v Commission. (1) Accordingly, the applicants request the Court to set a much lower fine that fairly reflects what the applicants did. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on the applicants is disproportionately high. In particular, the applicants claim that the defendant erred in its assessment of the mitigating circumstances that relate to the applicants’ infringement. The applicants further allege that the defendant gave insufficient weight to the fact that the applicants’ participation in the single continuous infringement was both less extensive and less serious than found by the 2016 Decision as held by the General Court in Case T-105/17 HSBC v Commission. (1) Accordingly, the applicants request the Court to set a much lower fine that fairly reflects what the applicants did.

---

(1)  Judgment of 24 September 2019, HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission, T-105/17, EU:T:2019:675.

---