CELEX: 62014TN0445
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-445/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — ABB v Commission

8.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/39
            
         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — ABB v Commission
   (Case T-445/14)
   2014/C 303/47
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland); and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all projects for underground power cables with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul in part Article 1 of the decision insofar as it finds that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on 1 April 2000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to meet its burden of proof and committed a manifest error of assessment in assuming that the infringement covered all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above, when the Commission’s file contained clear indications that not all projects with voltages below 220 kV were subject to the infringement.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not meet its burden of proof in establishing the applicants’ participation in such an infringement covering all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in including within the scope of the infringement all underground power cable accessories relating to underground cable projects with a voltage of 110 kV and above, when the evidence in the Commission’s file showed that the infringement extended only to power cables accessories relating to underground power cable projects with a voltage of 220 kV and above.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law when finding that the applicants participated in the infringement as from 1 April 2000.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and breached the presumption of innocence by assuming that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on the earliest possible date.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned contrary to Article 296 TFEU.