# C_2022424EN.01004701.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/47

---

Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Crown Holdings and Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-587/22)

(2022/C 424/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Crown Holdings, Inc. (Yardley, Pennsylvania, United States), Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Seesen, Germany) (represented by: A. Burnside, C. Graf York von Wartenburg, A. Kidane and D. Strohl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40.522 — Metal Packaging) insofar as it applies to the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40.522 — Metal Packaging) insofar as it applies to the applicants; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, a general principle of EU law, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the German Federal Cartel Office (‘FCO’) thereby departing from established rules of practice as set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, a general principle of EU law, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the German Federal Cartel Office (‘FCO’) thereby departing from established rules of practice as set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO, violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations that it would comply with established rules of practice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO, violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations that it would comply with established rules of practice.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case at such a late stage of the FCO’s proceedings, violated the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case at such a late stage of the FCO’s proceedings, violated the principle of subsidiarity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO several years after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO several years after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, failed to appropriately balance the objectives of competition law enforcement and those of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and the applicants’ rights of defence, thus breaching the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, failed to appropriately balance the objectives of competition law enforcement and those of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and the applicants’ rights of defence, thus breaching the principle of proportionality.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, infringed the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, infringed the principle of good administration.

---