62011TN0094

EUR-Lex

Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

EUROPA
EUR-Lex home
EUR-Lex - 62011TN0094 - EN

Help

Search tips

Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011TN0094

Help

Case T-94/11: Action brought on 22 February 2011 — AU Optronics v Commission

OJ C 120, 16.4.2011, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

HTML

PDF

Official Journal

16.4.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/14

Action brought on 22 February 2011 — AU Optronics v Commission

(Case T-94/11)

2011/C 120/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AU Optronics Corp. (Hsinchu, Taiwan) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	annul Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays, insofar as it relates to the applicant;

—	in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish, to the requisite legal and evidential standard, that the Commission had jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, as:

—	The Commission failed to establish territorial jurisdiction;

—	The Commission failed to establish that the alleged agreement had an immediate, substantive and foreseeable effect in the EEA.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact when applying Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s right of defence.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred when determining the duration of the infringement.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in determining the basic amount of the fine, in particular as:

—	The Commission manifestly erred in calculating the value of sales;

—	The Commission manifestly erred by failing to take into account the applicant’s individual conduct when assessing the gravity of the infringement.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning when assessing the gravity of the infringement.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), as:

—	The Commission manifestly erred by not finding that the applicant’s cooperation represented very significant added value that merits a reduction at or near the top end of the 20 %-30 % range;

—	The Commission manifestly erred in law by basing its decision on criteria not provided for in the 2002 Leniency Note; and

—	As a consequence, the Commission infringed the applicant’s rights of defence.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s right to a fair trail and, as a result, breached Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as:

—	The applicant was denied the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses;

—	The applicant was denied the opportunity to comment on the calculation of the fine imposed on it;

—	The fine as imposed following an oral hearing that was not public and which the decision-maker did not attend; and

—	The contested decision was adopted by an administrative body, and no judicial body has jurisdiction to review all aspects of it.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)

Top

Choose the experimental features you want to try