Action brought on 15 February 2013 - Philips v Commission

(Case T-92/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and S. Molin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/39437 - TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.;

In the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed on Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. in Article 2 of the contested decision, and

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, and violation of the principle of legal certainty, in that the Commission established infringements of the Philips Group and attributed liability to the applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 27(1) Regulation (EC) No 1/2003², violation of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration, in that the Commission did not attribute liability to LG Philips Displays ("LPD ") for its own alleged infringements.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment, manifest error of assessment, breach of the obligation to state reasons, breach of Article 27 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 15 Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, and violation of the rights of defence including the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard, in that the Commission, applied different standards to undertakings subject to the same proceedings when attributing liability for the alleged infringements and in that the Commission applied different standards when setting the fine for undertakings subject to the same proceedings.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Fining Guidelines, and violation of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Commission included sales made outside the EEA in the relevant turnover for calculating the basic amount of the fines.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Fining Guidelines, in that the Commission did not calculate the relevant turnover on the basis of the last full business year of participation in the alleged infringements.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 by not applying the 10% turnover limit to the LPD Group's turnover for fines imposed for alleged the infringements of the LPD Group.

Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of reasonable time, Article 41 and 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights.

Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality; request that the Court exercise its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to reduce the fines imposed on the applicant.

____________

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)

² - Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18)

³ - Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)