# C_2021138EN.01004902.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/49

---

Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Suez v Commission

(Case T-121/21)

(2021/C 138/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Suez (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Billard, I. Simic, Y. Trifounovitch, G. Fabre, G. Vatin, D. Théophile, G. Aubron and O. Chriqui, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2020) 8969 final of 17 December 2020, which dismisses its request seeking, first, a declaration that Veolia Environnement S.A. infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by acquiring a 29,9 % stake in the capital of Suez without obtaining the Commission’s prior consent and, second, the adoption of interim measures against that company, pursuant to Article 8(5)(a) of that regulation, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 296 TFEU by adopting a decision the reasoning of which does not allow the applicant or the Court to understand the reasons which led the Commission to consider that the automatic derogation laid down in Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation was applicable. The applicant also complains that the contested decision is vitiated by a contradiction in its reasoning with regard to the applicability of Article 7(1) of the EC Merger Regulation to the acquisition of a 29,9 % stake in its capital. Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision deviated, without adequate reasoning, from the settled case-law of the EU Courts relating to the principle that the exception with suspensive effect laid down in Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation must be interpreted strictly. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 296 TFEU by adopting a decision the reasoning of which does not allow the applicant or the Court to understand the reasons which led the Commission to consider that the automatic derogation laid down in Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation was applicable. The applicant also complains that the contested decision is vitiated by a contradiction in its reasoning with regard to the applicability of Article 7(1) of the EC Merger Regulation to the acquisition of a 29,9 % stake in its capital. Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision deviated, without adequate reasoning, from the settled case-law of the EU Courts relating to the principle that the exception with suspensive effect laid down in Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation must be interpreted strictly.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission infringed that provision by finding that, first, the exception laid down in that article must be applied to the single concentration envisaged by Veolia as a whole although that exception was clearly devoid of purpose and therefore inapplicable to that concentration and, second, all the legal transactions which constitute a single concentration must be covered by the same legal regime in the light of that article. The applicant also considers that the application, by the Commission, of the exception laid down by that provision to the private acquisition of securities acquired from a single seller constitutes an additional infringement of that article. Finally, the applicant criticises the Commission for having considered that Veolia had met the condition related to notification without delay of the concentration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission infringed that provision by finding that, first, the exception laid down in that article must be applied to the single concentration envisaged by Veolia as a whole although that exception was clearly devoid of purpose and therefore inapplicable to that concentration and, second, all the legal transactions which constitute a single concentration must be covered by the same legal regime in the light of that article. The applicant also considers that the application, by the Commission, of the exception laid down by that provision to the private acquisition of securities acquired from a single seller constitutes an additional infringement of that article. Finally, the applicant criticises the Commission for having considered that Veolia had met the condition related to notification without delay of the concentration.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

---