# C_2012109EN.01002001.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/20

---

Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission

(Case T-49/12)

2012/C 109/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lafarge (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet and C. Medina, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---