Action brought on 12 June 2014 – The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission
(Case T-419/14)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 – Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant ; and/or
Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision ;
Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of 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 Treaty1 in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.
________________________1 OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p.1