# C_2018142EN.01005501.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/55

---

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission

(Case T-93/18)

(2018/C 142/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: International Skating Union (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis.

---