# C_2017112EN.01004602.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-105/17)

(2017/C 112/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom), HSBC Bank plc (London), HSBC France (Paris, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, QC, D. Bailey, Barrister, M. Simpson, Solicitor, Y. Anselin and C. Angeli, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the European Commission decision of 7 December 2016, notified on 9 December 2016, in Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — C(2016) 8530 final (the ‘Contested Decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the European Commission decision of 7 December 2016, notified on 9 December 2016, in Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — C(2016) 8530 final (the ‘Contested Decision’);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision;

| — | in the further alternative, partially annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision in so far as it holds that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, partially annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision in so far as it holds that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement;

| — | annul Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision;

| — | in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate, and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly concluded that the applicants engaged in conduct that has as its object the restriction and/or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly concluded that the applicants engaged in conduct that has as its object the restriction and/or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and fact and/or gave insufficient reasons for finding that the conduct subject to the Contested Decision pursued a single economic aim of distorting competition. Accordingly, the defendant’s finding of a single and continuous infringement (‘SCI’) is fundamentally flawed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and fact and/or gave insufficient reasons for finding that the conduct subject to the Contested Decision pursued a single economic aim of distorting competition. Accordingly, the defendant’s finding of a single and continuous infringement (‘SCI’) is fundamentally flawed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants intentionally contributed to the SCI described in the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or lack of reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants intentionally contributed to the SCI described in the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or lack of reasoning.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants were or ought to have been aware of the conduct of the other alleged participants in the SCI is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or a lack of reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants were or ought to have been aware of the conduct of the other alleged participants in the SCI is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or a lack of reasoning.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed essential procedural requirements in the process leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision. Specifically, the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration by adopting a staggered administrative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed essential procedural requirements in the process leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision. Specifically, the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration by adopting a staggered administrative procedure.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the defendant wrongly calculated the fine imposed on the applicants and as such the fine is unjustified and disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the defendant wrongly calculated the fine imposed on the applicants and as such the fine is unjustified and disproportionate.

---