# C_2022037EN.01002001.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/20

---

Appeal brought on 17 November 2021 by Brunswick Bowling Products LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2021 in Case T-152/19, Brunswick Bowling Products LLC v Commission

(Case C-694/21 P)

(2022/C 37/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brunswick Bowling Products LLC (represented by: R. Martens, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | and refer the case back to the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

and refer the case back to the General Court,

| — | or, in the alternative, set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and rule on the action at first instance and annul, in its entirety, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and rule on the action at first instance and annul, in its entirety, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 (1);

| — | and, in any case, order the European Commission to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

and, in any case, order the European Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 juncto 256(1) TFEU and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of good administration, because, the General Court committed an error of law by omitting to appraise the information on which the Commission relied or failed to rely upon to adopt its final decision, and by therefore failing to take into account all relevant factors, whereas, where the Commission has the duty to ensure that it has at its disposal the most complete and reliable information possible, an adequate review of the legality of the Commission Decision by the General Court implies a review as to whether the Commission relied on all relevant information and whether, where applicable, the information relied on by the Commission is factually accurate, reliable, complete and consistent.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter and the duty to state reasons, because, the General Court failed to provide a sufficiently detailed and reasoned statement of reasons, whereas, in conformity with its duty to state reasons the General Court should disclose its reasoning in such a way as to enable the Appellant to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 of 10 December 2018 on a safeguard measure taken by Sweden pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit to be used together with that type of pinsetter machine, manufactured by Brunswick Bowling & Billiards, and to withdraw those machines already placed on the market (OJ 2018, L 315, p. 29).

---