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 62012TN0404

Case T-404/12: Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Toshiba Corporation v Commission

IO C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.11.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/19

Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Toshiba Corporation v Commission

(Case T-404/12)

2012/C 343/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Toshiba Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and S. Sakellariou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul the Commission decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines;

—

Alternatively, reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate; and, in any event,

—

Award the applicant its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the principle of proportionality by prematurely adopting its decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines, before the European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C-498/11 P Toshiba Corporation v European Commission.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Toshiba’s rights of defence by not issuing a Statement of Objections before the adoption of the decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines; and by not addressing in the Letter of Facts an important element of the fine calculation imposed by the said decision.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in treating the applicant differently to the European manufacturers of Gas Insulated Switchgear when basing the applicant’s fine on TM T&D’s starting amount rather than the applicant’s turnover;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning when setting TM T&D’s starting amount.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in failing to differentiate in the level of culpability of Toshiba compared to the European manufacturers of Gas Insulated Switchgear.
Top