This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0149
Case T-149/10: Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
Case T-149/10: Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
Case T-149/10: Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
IO C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 42–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 148/42 |
Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
(Case T-149/10)
2010/C 148/70
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (Icheon-si, Korea) (represented by: A. Woodgate and O. Heinisch, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the Commission Decision C(2010) 150 dated 15 January 2010; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs; |
|
— |
grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision C(2010) 150 rejecting, for lack of the Community interest, the applicant’s complaint regarding alleged violations by Rambus of Articles 102 TFUE in connection with claiming of potentially abusive royalties for the use of certain patents for “Dynamic Random Access Memory” (DRAM) (Case COMP/38.636 — Rambus) following the Commission decision of 9 December 2009 by which it made binding upon Rambus certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action.
In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.
First, it submits that the Commission violated essential procedural requirements by not granting the applicant sufficient access to relevant documents.
Second, the applicant argues that there remains strong community interest in pursuing its complaint. It submits that the Commission based its rejection decision exclusively on the fact that there is no longer community interest given that it adopted the Article 9 decision. In the applicant’s view, in this case the position and reasoning adopted by the Commission makes the question of Community interest and the validity of the rejection decision intrinsically linked to the validity of the Article 9 decision which is contested by the applicant in Case T-148/10.
Third, fourth and fifth plea raised by the applicant are identical to the first, second and third plea that it puts forward in Case T-148/10 and concern the alleged violations committed by the Commission when adopting the Article 9 decision making binding upon Rambus certain commitments.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1