CELEX: 62017TN0113
Language: en
Date: 2017-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-113/17: Action brought on 20 Feburary 2017 — Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

17.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 231/27
            
         Action brought on 20 Feburary 2017 — Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
   (Case T-113/17)
   (2017/C 231/34)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, lawyer, M. Powell, Solicitor, J. Jourdan and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Principally:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Article 1(a) and, in consequence, Article 2(a) of the decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in any event, annul Article 2(a) of the decision.
            
         In the alternative:
   
               —
            
            
               significantly reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in application of Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003.
            
         Additionally:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 2 October 2014, 4 March 2015, 27 March 2015, 29 July 2015 and 19 September 2016 and, in consequence, annul Articles 1(a) and 2(a) of the decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   This action concerns the annulment in part of European Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 concerning a procedure in application of Article 101 TFEU in the case of Euro interest rate derivatives (AT.39914 — EIRD), imposing a fine of EUR 114 654 000 on the applicants and, in the alternative, a very significant reduction in that penalty.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on 10 pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to the courts and the adversarial principle.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of impartiality and the presumption of innocence.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the participation of the applicants in the manipulative practices alleged.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly classifies the practices referred to as restrictions by object.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in that it regarded all the practices as constituting a single infringement.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that the applicants were aware of the overall plan or that they intended to participate therein.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, in that it classified the applicants’ alleged infringement as continuous, when, at most, it was repeated.
            
         
               8.
            
            
               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, in that it attributed the practices of traders to the applicants.
            
         
               9.
            
            
               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission imposed a fine in breach of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of sound administration, its obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle of proportionality.
            
         
               10.
            
            
               Tenth plea in law, claiming that the General Court should reduce the amount of the fine, which is disproportionate having regard to the seriousness and duration of the practices.