EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0235

Case T-235/18: Action brought on 6 April 2018 — Qualcomm/Commission

OJ C 190, 4.6.2018, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/41


Action brought on 6 April 2018 — Qualcomm/Commission

(Case T-235/18)

(2018/C 190/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualcomm, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, M. Davilla and M. English, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision;

Annul, or in the alternative, reduce substantially the amount of the fine;

Order the measures of organisation or inquiry referred to in the application; and

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest procedural errors;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of assessment, fails to state reasons and distorts evidence in dismissing Qualcomm’s efficiency defence;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of law and of assessment in finding that the impugned agreements were capable of producing potential anticompetitive effects;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of assessment regarding the definition of the relevant product market and the finding of dominance;

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of law and of assessment and fails to state reasons with regard to the duration of the alleged infringement;

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of assessment in applying the fining guidelines and infringes the principle of proportionality; and

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision commits manifest errors of assessment in establishing the Commission’s jurisdiction and effect on trade between Member States.


Top