Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013TN0082

Case T-82/13: Action brought on 13 February 2013 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission

OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.4.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/28

Action brought on 13 February 2013 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission

(Case T-82/13)

2013/C 101/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Panasonic Corp. (Kadoma, Japan) and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (Matsuocho, Japan) (represented by: R. Gerrits, A. Bischke, lawyers, M. Hoskins, QC, and S. Abram, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final adopted on 5 December 2012 in case COMP/39437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, in whole or in part, as appropriate, insofar as it finds that the applicants infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement;

—

Annul the penalties imposed on the applicants, or reduce such penalties, as appropriate; and

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs for these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of right to a fair hearing in relation to the period up to 10 February 2003, as:

—

The contested decision bases its finding that Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘MEI’) participated in the alleged single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU relating to colour picture tubes (the ‘CPT cartel’) in the period before 10 February 2003 on two new claims, which did not appear in the Statement of Objections: first that MEI knew, or should have known, about the CPT cartel and secondly that MEI made a strategic decision to participate in the CPT cartel through bilateral contacts. Similarly, the contested decision relies for the first time on certain oral statements and documentary evidence, or parts thereof, in support of these allegations;

—

The inclusion of these allegations and materials for the first time in the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of Panasonic Corporation’s (‘Panasonic’) rights of defence is inadmissible and requires annulment of the said decision against MEI in respect of this period.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to prove that MEI knew or should have known of the existence and/or content of the CPT cartel in relation to the period up to 10 February 2003, as:

—

Even if the allegations and/or evidence referred to under the first plea in law were admissible, the Commission has failed to prove that MEI knew or should have known that the bilateral contacts in which it participated were part of an overall plan and that the overall plan included all of the constituent elements of the alleged CPT cartel;

—

Neither does the evidence relied on show that MEI made a strategic choice to participate in any CPT cartel via bilateral meetings.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to prove that MEI/MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (‘MTPD’) participated in the single and continuous infringement identified in the contested decision as from 10 February 2003, as:

—

The activities in Europe and Asia as from 10 February 2003 did not form part of a common plan with a single objective;

—

MEI/MTPD did not participate in any multilateral CPT meetings in Europe;

—

In relation to MEI/MTPD’s bilateral contacts during this period, the Commission has failed to prove that MEI/MTPD knew or should have known of the existence and/or content of the multilateral cartel activities in Europe involving other addressees of the contested decision.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the penalty imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be overturned completely, alternatively reduced, as:

—

Panasonic/MTPD’s primary case is that the findings of infringement against each of them should be annulled in their entirety and the penalty imposed on each of them should be overturned completely;

—

Alternatively, if Panasonic/MTPD’s application for annulment is successful on some but not all grounds, the penalty imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be reduced accordingly;

—

Further or alternatively, even if the finding of infringement is sustained, the fine imposed on Panasonic/MTPD is excessive, because the contested decision uses a flawed methodology which assigns an erroneously inflated value to intra-group sales for fine calculation purposes;

—

Further or alternatively still, if it is not overturned completely, the fine imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be reduced in recognition of its lesser involvement in the alleged CPT cartel.
Top