8.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/40

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission

(Case T-450/14)

2014/C 303/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan); and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by: M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for a single complex continuous infringement including the European and the A/R configuration or, in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine;

—	in the alternative, annul Article 1(8)(a)-(c) of the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for an infringement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008;

—	in the further alternative, annul Article 2(m) of the Commission decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in view of the applicants’ substantially limited involvement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008; and

—	annul the decision in its entirety as it relies to a decisive extent on evidence illegally seized at the premises of Nexans SA and Nexans France;

—	ordering the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the contested decision failed to prove to the required legal standard the applicants’ involvement over the entire duration of the infringement.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on the applicants, as the fine imposed does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and the applicants’ substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement and rights of defence as the contested decision relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans.