Case T-227/18: Action brought on 3 April 2018 — Microsemi Europe and Microsemi v Commission
Date: 2018-04-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition








C_2018190EN.01003901.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/39





Action brought on 3 April 2018 — Microsemi Europe and Microsemi v Commission
(Case T-227/18)
(2018/C 190/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Microsemi Europe Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom) and Microsemi Corp. (Aliso Viejo, California, United States) (represented by: D. Aulfes and J. Lenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 23 January 2018 (in respect of Case AT.40529 — TSMC) based on Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the decision neither names the addressee nor allows the addressee to be identified with sufficient clarity.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a lack of authority, in so far as the second applicant is to be regarded as the addressee of the contested decision.
The applicants submit that the Commission does not have the authority to issue acts with legal effects beyond the territory of the European Union and that it cannot require an undertaking with its seat in the United States of America to submit information.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation, in so far as the second applicant is to be regarded as the addressee of the contested decision.
In this respect it is submitted that the Commission cannot require an undertaking with its seat in the United States of America to submit information and that it is not permitted to give incorrect information to that undertaking with regard to the possibility of the imposition of pecuniary penalties.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation.
Further, the applicants submit that the Commission is not permitted to require the submission of information in respect of all the undertakings of a group on a global level pursuant to recital 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, but rather can require such information only in respect of the European market.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission also breaches the principle of proportionality when it requests information about markets outside of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation, in so far as the first applicant is to be regarded as the addressee of the contested decision.
In this respect it is submitted that requiring information about a parent company in the United States of America and other associated undertakings in Europe from a subsidiary in the European Union amounts to a breach of the principle of proportionality.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.
The applicants claim that requesting information about associated undertakings in the European Union constitutes a misuse of powers, as those undertakings could be obliged to provide such information directly.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to insufficient reasons being provided in the contested decision.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to insufficient information on the purpose of the requests for information.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the questions asked in the contested decision are not permissible.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation, as the questions asked in the contested decision are imprecise.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation.