CELEX: 62013TN0084
Language: en
Date: 2013-02-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-84/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission

13.4.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 108/32
            
         Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-84/13)
   2013/C 108/81
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea); Samsung SDI Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany); and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, D. Hull, Solicitor, and L.-A. Grelier, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Article 1(2) and 2(2) of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 in case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes (contested decision) insofar as it affects the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative: partially annul Article 1(2) of the decision insofar as it concerns the starting and end dates of the applicants’ participation in the colour picture tubes used in televisions (‘CPT’) infringement, and reduce the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 2(2) of the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely, with respect to the CPT infringement, on three pleas in law. With respect to the colour display tubes used in computer monitors (CDT) infringement, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   With respect to the CPT infringement, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying Article 101 TFEU to find that there was a single and continuous infringement covering all types of CPTs during the entire duration of the infringement and the entire arrangements that took place in Asia.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission erred in determining both the starting date and the end date of the applicants’ participation in the CPT infringement, which led to extend the total duration of the cartel by at least sixteen months.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicants the maximum 50 % leniency reduction is based on incorrect facts and manifestly erroneous.
            
         With respect to the CDT infringement, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea, alleging that the Commission violated its Fining Guidelines (1) by including the sales of CDTs delivered to Samsung Electronics in Europe in the value of sales for the fine calculation, notwithstanding the fact that the competition for these sales entirely took place in Korea.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea, alleging that the Commission violated its Fining Guidelines by taking the average annual turnover over the entire period of the infringement for the calculation of the fine, thereby deviating from the rule of taking the last full business year of the infringement.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea, alleging that the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicants the maximum 50 % leniency reduction is based on incorrect facts and manifestly erroneous.
            
         
      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)