EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TN0455

Case T-455/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission

OJ C 412, 11.10.2021, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.10.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/16


Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission

(Case T-455/21)

(2021/C 412/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nomura International plc (London, United Kingdom), Nomura Holdings, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. Howard, lawyer, M. Demetriou and C. Thomas, Barristers-at-law, and N. Seay and S. Whitfield, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul Article 1, fourth bullet, of the Commission’s Decision of 20 May 2021 in Case AT.40324 (European Government Bonds) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’), in whole or in part, and so annul the Commission’s finding of liability against the applicants in whole or in part;

in the alternative, annul Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision, in whole or in part, and so annul the fine against the applicants in whole or in part;

in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicants engaged in a ‘by object’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in the Commission’s classification of the contacts in question and consequently its conclusion that they are anticompetitive.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in respect of the duration of the applicants’ alleged period of infringement.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in concluding that there was a single and continuous infringement between 18 January 2011 and 28 November 2011.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breaches of essential procedural requirements and of the Treaties in relation to liability, including in relation to the Commission’s presentation of its findings, the way in which it has classified the relevant contacts and a breach of equal treatment in respect of the determination of the duration of the applicants’ participation.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact by the adoption of a value of sales proxy which is founded on assumptions which are materially inaccurate as a matter of fact, and the use of which has not been justified by the Commission; further, even on its own terms, the proposed methodology is flawed.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breaches of the general principles of proportionality, equal treatment and that the fine should be specific to the offender in relation to the calculation of the applicants’ fine based on the Commission’s value of sales proxy.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the right of defence and duty to give reasons in relation to the Commission’s presentation of the value of sales proxy.

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging errors of assessment of fact and breach of the principle of equal treatment in characterising the gravity of the applicants’ involvement in the alleged infringement.

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the applicants’ limited role as a mitigating circumstance when calculating the applicants’ fine.


Top