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 62016TN0008

Case T-8/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016, p. 52–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.3.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/52

Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

(Case T-8/16)

(2016/C 098/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. (Tokyo, Japan), and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado, A. Aresu and A. Scordamaglia-Tousis, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement;

—

further, or in the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs; and

—

make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural requirements and of the applicants’ rights of defence, resulting from the inconsistent legal characterisation of the conduct, the contradictory, or the very least, insufficient reasoning regarding the legal characterisation of the alleged infringement, the failure to give access to exculpatory evidence, and the reliance on several legal and factual elements in the contested decision that were not addressed in the statement of objections.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the application of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the finding of an effect on trade between Members States.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the determination of the geographic scope of the infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the application of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the finding of a single infringement.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in respect of the applicants’ alleged awareness of the whole single infringement and, more specifically, of the participation of all other addresses.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law regarding the starting date of the applicants’ alleged participation to whole single infringement.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in relation to the scope of the infringement imputed to the applicants by finding that the applicants were involved in anticompetitive ‘agreements’.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to good administration and of related general principles of EU law resulting from the manifestly excessive duration of the investigation.

9.

Ninth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging errors in the calculation of the fine, resulting from:

—

the Commission’s failure to take account of the fact that (a) the applicants are a single-product undertaking, (b) additional circumstances limiting the gravity of the applicants’ individual conduct and mitigating circumstances; and

—

the Commission’s failure to give proper weight to the specific circumstances of the infringement in setting the level of the general gravity multiplier and the entry fee.
Top