CELEX: 62014TN0449
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-449/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

25.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/49
            
         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
   (Case T-449/14)
   2014/C 282/63
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Nexans France (Clichy, France); and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul part of the contested decision in so far as it found that Nexans France participated in an infringement before 22 February 2001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants by an amount that corresponds to a shorter duration and a reduced gravity factor; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the duration of the infringement.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it failed to take account of the alleged infringement’s lack of implementation and lack of effects on customers, failed to give adequate reasons and breached the principle of equal treatment.