Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:452
Date: 2018-07-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 16 June 2014 – Fujikura v Commission (Case T-451/14) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: reduce the fine imposed on it in Article 2 (o) of the decision for its direct participation in the cartel between 18 February 1999 and 30 September 2001; annul Article 2 (p) of the decision insofar as it holds Fujikura jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on Viscas between 1 January 2005 and 28 January 2009; order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by including Viscas’ parents’ independent sales in 2004 into the value of sales used for the determination of the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that it only participated in the alleged cartel until 30 September 2001 and that its independent sales in the course of 2004 did not form part of the cartel. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by insufficiently taking into account the limited weight of the Japanese undertakings in the cartel when setting the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that since it faced significant technical and commercial entry barriers in Europe, its commitment not to compete in the European Economic Area (EEA) was immaterial for the effectiveness of the European suppliers’ customer allocation arrangements within the EEA. The Commission should therefore have differentiated more significantly the gravity factors used for the fines imposed upon the applicant (or other Asian suppliers) and upon European suppliers. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by retaining the applicant’s parent liability for the fine imposed on Viscas also from 1 January 2005 onwards. The applicant submits that when Viscas became a full-function joint venture in January 2005, the legal links (e.g. reporting), organizational links (e.g. secondment of full time directors) and economic links (e.g. guarantees for borrowings) between Viscas and the applicant became too thin for the Commission to conclude that the applicant continued to exercise decisive influence over Viscas during the infringement period between January 2005 and January 2009.