# C_2016068EN.01003902.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/39

---

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission

(Case T-751/15)

(2016/C 068/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015 with which the applicant’s complaint of 18 November 2010 was rejected on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. (1)

1

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

| 1. | First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets
  The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets

The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU
  With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU

With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to.

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons
  In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons

In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion
  With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion

With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect.

---

(1)  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).

1

---