CELEX: 62012TN0409
Language: en
Date: 2012-09-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-409/12: Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission

10.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/19
            
         Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission
   (Case T-409/12)
   2012/C 343/33
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Denton, J. Vyavaharkar and R. Browne, Solicitors, and K. Haegeman, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4381 final of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines), in so far as it concerns the applicant; or, in the alternative,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant therein; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine and has breached the principle of sound administration.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in calculating the multiplier applicable to the applicant and has infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in calculating the multiplier.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in assessing the fine of the applicant in the same way as it assessed the fine to be imposed on the European producers.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission erred in failing to take into account economic and technical evidence when assessing the impact of the applicant’s behaviour and in calculating the applicant’s fine.
                        
                     
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission erred in determining the duration of the alleged cartel.
                        
                     
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission erred in assessing the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
                        
                     
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in deciding the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company.
                        
                     
         
               8.
            
            
               Eight plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission erred in its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
                        
                     
         
               9.
            
            
               Ninth plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons with respect to its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D.