Case T-91/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — LG Electronics v Commission
Date: 2013-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: computer equipment, fine, multinational enterprise, restriction on competition








C_2013108EN.01003401.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/34





Action brought on 14 February 2013 — LG Electronics v Commission
(Case T-91/13)
2013/C 108/83
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Korea) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.1(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the European Commission’s decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, insofar as they concern the applicant; and/or










—


Reduce the fines imposed on the applicant in Articles 2.1(d) and (e) and Articles 2.2(d) and (e) of the contested decision;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
Plea pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision insofar as they concern the applicant:






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that LG Philips Displays (‘LPD’) was kept outside the proceedings as a defendant.
Pleas seeking the (partial) annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and a corresponding reduction of applicant’s fines pursuant to Article 261 TFEU:










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), violation of the principle of personal liability, and manifest error of assessment, in that the applicant is held liable for infringements committed by LPD.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in that the contested decision holds the applicant liable for any conduct prior to 1 July 2001.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, violation of Article 296 TFEU, and violation of the principle of equal treatment, in that the contested decision includes Direct EEA Sales Through Transformed Products (“TPDS”) in calculating the fine imposed on the applicant.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, violation of the principle of personal liability, manifest error of assessment, violation of the applicant's rights of defence, in that the contested decision holds the applicant liable for the fine based on TPDS made by Philips.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 296 TFEU, manifest error of assessment and violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, in that the contested decision (i) fails to state sufficient reasons for not including TPDS for Samsung, and/or (ii) arbitrarily includes or excludes TPDS causing unequal treatment between the applicant and Samsung.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, in that (i) the contested decision is not addressed to LPD and the LPD subsidiaries that participated in the infringements while another joint venture was addressed alongside its parents, and (ii) in that other parent companies in the same situation as the applicant were not addressed in the contested decision.
Plea based on the Court's unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:










8.


Eighth plea in law, requesting that the Court exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to reduce the applicant's fine as it is excessive and disproportionate.






(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)