# C_2020287EN.01004001.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/40

---

Action brought on 15 July 2020 — Facebook Ireland v Commission

(Case T-452/20)

(2020/C 287/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Facebook Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Jowell, QC, D. Bailey, Barrister, J. Aitken, D. Das, S. Malhi, R. Haria, M. Quayle, Solicitors and T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2020) 3013 final, dated 4 May 2020 (Case AT.40684 — Facebook Marketplace), in so far as it requests the internal documents specified in Annex I.B; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2020) 3013 final, dated 4 May 2020 (Case AT.40684 — Facebook Marketplace), in so far as it requests the internal documents specified in Annex I.B;

| — | in the alternative: (i) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requests irrelevant documents; (ii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in order that independent EU-qualified lawyers may be permitted to conduct a relevance review of the documents captured by the Marketplace Document Request in order to exclude from production documents that are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation and/or personal documents; and/or (iii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requires production of irrelevant documents that are personal or private in nature; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: (i) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requests irrelevant documents; (ii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in order that independent EU-qualified lawyers may be permitted to conduct a relevance review of the documents captured by the Marketplace Document Request in order to exclude from production documents that are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation and/or personal documents; and/or (iii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requires production of irrelevant documents that are personal or private in nature;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by requiring a document production consisting of a clear majority of wholly irrelevant and/or personal documents, the contested Decision infringes the principle of necessity reflected in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and/or violates Facebook’s rights of defence and/or constitutes a misuse of powers. Accordingly, the Commission erred in law and/or assessment in the application of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by requiring a document production consisting of a clear majority of wholly irrelevant and/or personal documents, the contested Decision infringes the principle of necessity reflected in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and/or violates Facebook’s rights of defence and/or constitutes a misuse of powers. Accordingly, the Commission erred in law and/or assessment in the application of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by requiring the production of so many documents (for example: correspondence of employees regarding medical issues; correspondence at times of bereavement; documents relating to personal property investments; job applications; internal appraisals; and documents assessing security risks to the family members of key Facebook personnel), the contested Decision infringes the fundamental right to privacy, the principle of proportionality and the fundamental right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by requiring the production of so many documents (for example: correspondence of employees regarding medical issues; correspondence at times of bereavement; documents relating to personal property investments; job applications; internal appraisals; and documents assessing security risks to the family members of key Facebook personnel), the contested Decision infringes the fundamental right to privacy, the principle of proportionality and the fundamental right to good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Marketplace Decision fails to explain why its search terms will only identify documents that are necessary and relevant for the Commission’s investigation or to explain why any relevance review by external, EU qualified lawyers are not permitted or to explain or provide for any legally binding, data room for personal and/or wholly irrelevant documents and is therefore based on insufficient reasoning, contrary to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Marketplace Decision fails to explain why its search terms will only identify documents that are necessary and relevant for the Commission’s investigation or to explain why any relevance review by external, EU qualified lawyers are not permitted or to explain or provide for any legally binding, data room for personal and/or wholly irrelevant documents and is therefore based on insufficient reasoning, contrary to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU.

---