Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:738
Date: 2016-12-15
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France;Netherlands

Action brought on 13 November 2014 – Philips and Philips France v Commission (Case T-762/14) Language of the case: English Parties Applicants: Koninklijke Philips NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands); and Philips France (Suresnes, France) (represented by: J. de Pree, S. Molin and A. ter Haar, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: annul the decision, in so far as it concerns Philips in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Philips in the decision, and in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 in case AT.39574 – Smart Card Chips. In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that the contacts that Philips engaged in qualified as a restriction of competition by object. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in that the Commission established that the infringement extended to smart card chips for all applications and was not limited to SIM. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that Philips was part of a multilateral cartel together with Infineon, Renesas and Samsung and participated in a single and continuous infringement. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of sound administration and the duty of care in that the Commission did not handle the case fairly and impartially. Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in that, as a result of its conduct of the proceedings, the Commission failed to prove the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 27 of Regulation 1/20031 , Article 11 of Regulation 773/20042 , Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and violation of Philips’ rights of defence in that the Commission failed to disclose important exculpatory evidence. Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 in that the Commission was barred from sanctioning the alleged conduct insofar as it took place before 3 September 2004. Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines in that the Commission incorrectly established the relevant value of sales. Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the Fining Guidelines, Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality in that the Commission applied a disproportionate gravity factor. ____________ ____________ 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). 2 Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).