CELEX: 62018TN0344
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-344/18: Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission

201808030712050852018/C 294/653442018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180604515111Case T-344/18: Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5110120180604EN0065511511Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission
   (Case T-344/18)2018/C 294/65Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Rubycon Corp. (Ina City, Japan) and Rubycon Holdings Co. Ltd (Ina City) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, A. Federle and M. Relange, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40136 — Capacitors — as far as it relates to Rubycon, in particular Article 1(h), Article 2(k), Article 2(l) and Article 4;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on Rubycon under Article 2 of the contested decision to a level that it is not discriminatory and Rubycon’s exceptional level of cooperation is rewarded;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s refusal to grant Rubycon the benefit of ‘partial immunity’ under point 26 of the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (
                  1
               ) for the increased gravity of the infringement.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently motivated and vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s conclusion not to depart from the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (
                  2
               ) and not to grant Rubycon an additional fine reduction, in breach of the EU law principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence.
         
      (
         1
      )	Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17).
   (
         2
      )	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).