# C_2021382EN.01002702.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/27

---

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Natixis v Commission

(Case T-449/21)

(2021/C 382/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Natixis (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Stratford, Barrister-at-law, and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final adopted on 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40324: European Government Bonds (the ‘Contested Decision’) to be void in its entirety, as concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final adopted on 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40324: European Government Bonds (the ‘Contested Decision’) to be void in its entirety, as concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legitimate interest in adopting the Contested Decision within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legitimate interest in adopting the Contested Decision within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of: (a) the applicant’s rights of defence; (b) Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (and/or (c) Articles 10(1) and 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) N 773/2004/EC (2).






  — | The applicant states that in the Contested Decision, the Commission relied on the legal and deterrent effects stemming from a finding of infringement in support of its finding of a legitimate interest; notwithstanding that this was not an objection put to the applicant on which it had an opportunity of meaningfully making representations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of: (a) the applicant’s rights of defence; (b) Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (and/or (c) Articles 10(1) and 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) N 773/2004/EC (2).

—

The applicant states that in the Contested Decision, the Commission relied on the legal and deterrent effects stemming from a finding of infringement in support of its finding of a legitimate interest; notwithstanding that this was not an objection put to the applicant on which it had an opportunity of meaningfully making representations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was supported by inadequate reasons and/or was disproportionate. The further applicant alleges that:






  — | In the event that there was a legitimate interest (which the applicant disputes) in making a finding of infringement against the applicant, the Commission gave no adequate reasons for exercising its discretion to make that finding. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was supported by inadequate reasons and/or was disproportionate. The further applicant alleges that:

—

In the event that there was a legitimate interest (which the applicant disputes) in making a finding of infringement against the applicant, the Commission gave no adequate reasons for exercising its discretion to make that finding.

| — | The exercise of the Commission’s discretion contravened the principle of proportionality because the Contested Decision was unnecessary to achieve the aim of the effective enforcement of competition law and the disadvantages to the applicant of a finding of infringement were disproportionate to that aim. |
| --- | --- |

—

The exercise of the Commission’s discretion contravened the principle of proportionality because the Contested Decision was unnecessary to achieve the aim of the effective enforcement of competition law and the disadvantages to the applicant of a finding of infringement were disproportionate to that aim.

If any or all of the first, second and/or third pleas in law is upheld, the applicant contends that the Contested Decision must be annulled in its entirety. To the extent necessary, however, the applicant advances a further plea in law.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the Contested Decision was unlawful because the Commission:






  — | exceeded its powers in directing the termination of an infringement and prohibiting its resumption, in circumstances where that infringement had ceased; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the Contested Decision was unlawful because the Commission:

—

exceeded its powers in directing the termination of an infringement and prohibiting its resumption, in circumstances where that infringement had ceased;

| — | adopted a reverse burden of proof, in breach of the presumption of innocence, insofar as it exercised its powers because it could not be sure the infringement had ceased; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopted a reverse burden of proof, in breach of the presumption of innocence, insofar as it exercised its powers because it could not be sure the infringement had ceased;

| — | erred in fact in concluding that the infringement, on the part of the applicant and/or as a whole, had not ceased; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in fact in concluding that the infringement, on the part of the applicant and/or as a whole, had not ceased; and/or

| — | acted disproportionately, because it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Commission to exercise its powers to prevent an infringement of competition law by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

acted disproportionately, because it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Commission to exercise its powers to prevent an infringement of competition law by the applicant.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---