# C_2011095EN.01001001.xml

| 26.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

---

Action brought on 1 February 2011 — Omnis Group Srl v European Commission

(Case T-74/11)

2011/C 95/16

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Omnis Group Srl (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): European Commission

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Grant this application for annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant this application for annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft;

| — | Refer the case back to the defendant for a decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the defendant for a decision;

| — | In the alternative, the General Court should decide the case and uphold the applicant's complaint. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the General Court should decide the case and uphold the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft, which rejected the complaint made by the applicant concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct by M9icrosoft.

In support of its application, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on the fact that the refusal by the defendant to investigate the abuses by Microsoft on the EAS/ERP (Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning) market is based on unfounded arguments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on the fact that the refusal by the defendant to investigate the abuses by Microsoft on the EAS/ERP (Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning) market is based on unfounded arguments.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on the fact that the defendant assessed the importance of the case wrongly, reaching the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that the issue raised by the applicant was of no interest to the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on the fact that the defendant assessed the importance of the case wrongly, reaching the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that the issue raised by the applicant was of no interest to the EU.

| 3. | The third plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant not to follow up the applicant’s complaint is unlawful and unfounded in that it infringes the rights of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant not to follow up the applicant’s complaint is unlawful and unfounded in that it infringes the rights of the applicant.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant was made without documentation to corroborate Microsoft’s statements being available, so that, as a result of that decision, the anti-competitive conduct complained of persists, and the development of the applicant is impeded. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant was made without documentation to corroborate Microsoft’s statements being available, so that, as a result of that decision, the anti-competitive conduct complained of persists, and the development of the applicant is impeded.

---