Case T- 341/18 NEC Corporation v Commission, T- 342/18 Nichicon Corporation v Commission, T- 343/18 Tokin Corp v Commission and T- 344/18 Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings v Commission and T- 363/18 Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission (Electrolytic capacitors) [Archived]

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notes

Case T- 341/18 NEC Corporation v Commission, T- 342/18 Nichicon Corporation v Commission, T- 343/18 Tokin Corp v Commission and T- 344/18 Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings v Commission and T- 363/18 Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission (Electrolytic capacitors) [Archived]

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert

Practice notes
imgtext

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 September 2021; it is no longer maintained.

NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 757/21, C- 759/21 and C- 786/21

See further, timeline and related/relevant cases.

Case facts

OutlineAppeals to the General Court seeking Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 March 2018 finding the operation of a Cartel to exchange sensitive information with the aim to coordinate future behaviour and avoid price competition in the market for electrolytic capacitors (used to store electrical energy) and imposing fines totalling €253.935m (AT.40136).
Latest developmentOn 29 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the actions and upheld the fines imposed by the Commission.
Parties• Applicants: Nec Corporation (Nec)Nichicon Corporation (Nichicon)Tokin Corp (Tokin)Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings (Rubycon)Nippon
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Commission definition
What does Commission mean?

In the context of the bribery Act 2010, a commission is the giving of a financial advantage, although it is not necessarily a bribe.

Read more readmore

Popular documents

Case C- 67/13 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) v Commission ('by object' restrictions) [Archived]

Case C- 67/13 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) v Commission ('by object' restrictions) [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant

Case C- 680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club [Archived]

Case C- 680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained.See further, timeline.Case factsOutlineA national reference from Belgium seeking clarification on the

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 January 2018; it is no longer maintained.See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase facts<

Case C- 413/14 Intel v Commission (rebates and loyalty payments)

Case C- 413/14 Intel v Commission (rebates and loyalty payments)CASE HUB (date of judgment—06/09/2017)Note—referred back to the General Court in Case T- 286/09 RENVSee further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase factsARCHIVE—06/09/2017OutlineAppeal brought against the judgment of