This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0180
Case T-180/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission
Case T-180/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission
Case T-180/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission
OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 30–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.7.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 245/30 |
Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission
(Case T-180/15)
(2015/C 245/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Icap plc (London, United Kingdom), Icap Management Services Ltd (London) and Icap New Zealand Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen and S. Frank, lawyers)
Defendants: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul, in whole or in part, Commission decision of 4 February 2015, in Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives — C(2015) 432 final; |
— |
in the alternative, annul or reduce the level of the fine imposed; |
— |
in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; |
— |
take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the Commission in finding that the banks engaged in conduct restricting and/or distorting competition ‘by object’ |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the defendant in finding that the alleged facilitation by the applicants of the banks’ conduct constituted an infringement of competition law within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the Commission in setting duration of the applicant’s alleged involvement in the infringements.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach by the Commission of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the Fining Guidelines, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, a breach of the principle of proportionality and a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach by the Commission of the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’. |