# C_2020423EN.01003702.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/37

---

Action brought on 15 October 2020 — LC v Commission

(Case T-472/20)

(2020/C 423/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LC (represented by: L. Bôle-Richard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final of 28 May 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final of 28 May 2020;

| — | refer the file back to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the file back to the Commission;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission’s assessment of Community interest was manifestly incorrect. The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to take account of the importance and gravity of the infringement of the competition rules as criteria for assessing Community interest. The applicant adds that the fraudulent exploitation of his patent portfolio has allowed online merchants as well as postal and logistics operators to use the invention in question without sharing its use, its advantages and the benefits deriving from it over the entire market concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission’s assessment of Community interest was manifestly incorrect. The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to take account of the importance and gravity of the infringement of the competition rules as criteria for assessing Community interest. The applicant adds that the fraudulent exploitation of his patent portfolio has allowed online merchants as well as postal and logistics operators to use the invention in question without sharing its use, its advantages and the benefits deriving from it over the entire market concerned.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the Commission’s failure to examine the complaint with care and impartiality. The applicant claims that the contested decision contains a biased presentation of the case and its chronology, while providing inappropriate legal advice. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the wording of the contested decision demonstrates the Commission’s lack of analysis of the factual and legal elements brought to its attention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the Commission’s failure to examine the complaint with care and impartiality. The applicant claims that the contested decision contains a biased presentation of the case and its chronology, while providing inappropriate legal advice. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the wording of the contested decision demonstrates the Commission’s lack of analysis of the factual and legal elements brought to its attention.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission in finding itself in a conflict of interest and using delaying tactics against the applicant and his claims. In support of this plea, the applicant relies, inter alia, on the links between the Commission and Amazon. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission in finding itself in a conflict of interest and using delaying tactics against the applicant and his claims. In support of this plea, the applicant relies, inter alia, on the links between the Commission and Amazon.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law arising from the Commission’s failure to find discrimination in the access to the standard-setting process and to the results and reports of that process. The applicant claims that he was prevented from having access to the standardisation process both at GS1 and ISO and at postal or logistics operators and undertakings which had developed their own de facto sectoral standard based on the process patented by him. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law arising from the Commission’s failure to find discrimination in the access to the standard-setting process and to the results and reports of that process. The applicant claims that he was prevented from having access to the standardisation process both at GS1 and ISO and at postal or logistics operators and undertakings which had developed their own de facto sectoral standard based on the process patented by him.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law arising from the Commission’s failure to find a breach of Article 101(1) TFEU. The applicant submits that, within the parcel shipping and tracking market, it is demonstrated that the alleged infringers engaged in anticompetitive discussions, anticompetitive exclusion and, moreover, denied him access to the standardisation process. The applicant claims that an examination of the horizontal cooperation agreements in the light of the presumptions of compatibility and incompatibility would undoubtedly lead to finding those agreements incompatible with Article 101(1) TFEU. Finally, the applicant submits that, pursuant to Article 101(3) TFEU, no exemption can be granted to the horizontal cooperation agreements that are the subject of the dispute. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law arising from the Commission’s failure to find a breach of Article 101(1) TFEU. The applicant submits that, within the parcel shipping and tracking market, it is demonstrated that the alleged infringers engaged in anticompetitive discussions, anticompetitive exclusion and, moreover, denied him access to the standardisation process. The applicant claims that an examination of the horizontal cooperation agreements in the light of the presumptions of compatibility and incompatibility would undoubtedly lead to finding those agreements incompatible with Article 101(1) TFEU. Finally, the applicant submits that, pursuant to Article 101(3) TFEU, no exemption can be granted to the horizontal cooperation agreements that are the subject of the dispute.

---