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 62014TN0449

    Case T-449/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

    OJ C 282, 25.8.2014, p. 49–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.8.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 282/49

    Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

    (Case T-449/14)

    2014/C 282/63

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Nexans France (Clichy, France); and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

    —

    Annul part of the contested decision in so far as it found that Nexans France participated in an infringement before 22 February 2001;

    —

    Reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants by an amount that corresponds to a shorter duration and a reduced gravity factor; and

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the duration of the infringement.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it failed to take account of the alleged infringement’s lack of implementation and lack of effects on customers, failed to give adequate reasons and breached the principle of equal treatment.
    Top