# C_2019172EN.01003701.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/37

---

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-161/19)

(2019/C 172/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

| — | annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).

---