CELEX: 62014TN0098
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-98/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014  — Société Générale v Commission

12.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/36
            
         Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Société Générale v Commission
   (Case T-98/14)
   2014/C 142/47
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Société Générale SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Zelenko, J. Marthan and D. Kupka, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Article 2(c) of the European Commission decision No C(2013) 8512 final of 4 December 2013 in the EIRD case in so far as it imposes a fine on Société Générale;
            
         
               —
            
            
               reduce the amount of the fine imposed by that decision on Société Générale to an appropriate amount;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order, in any event, the European Commission to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission in the determination of the method of calculating the values of sales, in so far as the values adopted in the contested decision on the basis of that method do not reflect the respective positions of the banks against which the action has been brought on the relevant market during the infringement period (first part). The applicant submits that the Commission has thereby infringed its duty of diligence (second part) and has infringed the principles of equal treatment (third part) and of the protection of legitimate expectations (fourth part).
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons as regards the choice of the method applied by the Commission in order to calculate the value of the sales by the banks against which the action has been brought.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, claiming that the General Court should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce the applicant’s fine to an appropriate amount reflecting the respective positions of the banks against which the action has been brought on the relevant market.