# C_2020095EN.01004501.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/45

---

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Tele Columbus v Commission

(Case T-69/20)

(2020/C 95/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tele Columbus AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Wagner and J. Hackl, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2019) 5187 of 18 July 2019 (M.8864 — VODAFONE/CERTAIN LIBERTY GLOBAL ASSETS), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2019) 5187 of 18 July 2019 (M.8864 — VODAFONE/CERTAIN LIBERTY GLOBAL ASSETS),

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the German ‘market for the supply of cable TV signal transmission to households in multi-dwelling-units (MDU customers)’ (‘MDU market’) significantly impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the German ‘market for the supply of cable TV signal transmission to households in multi-dwelling-units (MDU customers)’ (‘MDU market’) significantly impede effective competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the German ‘market for the supply of cable TV signal transmission to households in single-dwelling-units (SDU customers)’ significantly impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the German ‘market for the supply of cable TV signal transmission to households in single-dwelling-units (SDU customers)’ significantly impede effective competition.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of whether vertical non-coordinated effects on the signal transmission market and the related MDU market in Germany significantly impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of whether vertical non-coordinated effects on the signal transmission market and the related MDU market in Germany significantly impede effective competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the so-called feed-in market in Germany significantly impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the examination of whether horizontal non-coordinated effects on the so-called feed-in market in Germany significantly impede effective competition.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of commitments since the Commission accepted a set of commitments that was inherently unsuitable from the outset to compensate for the significant impediments to competition resulting from the merger. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and procedural irregularity in the examination of commitments since the Commission accepted a set of commitments that was inherently unsuitable from the outset to compensate for the significant impediments to competition resulting from the merger.

---