# C_2017231EN.01003001.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/30

---

Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case T-255/17)

(2017/C 231/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury, B. Chemama and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Adopt a measure of organisation of the procedure to require the Commission to state the presumptions and produce the indications which it had to justify the object and aim of Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Adopt a measure of organisation of the procedure to require the Commission to state the presumptions and produce the indications which it had to justify the object and aim of Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2;

| — | Uphold the plea of illegality of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that it does not provide for an effective remedy with regard to the conditions for execution of the inspection decisions in accordance with Articles 6(1), 8 and 13 of the ECHR and Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the plea of illegality of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that it does not provide for an effective remedy with regard to the conditions for execution of the inspection decisions in accordance with Articles 6(1), 8 and 13 of the ECHR and Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter;

| — | Annul Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2 of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires S.A.S. and all its subsidiaries to submit to an inspection under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2 of 21 February 2017 ordering Les Mousquetaires S.A.S. and all its subsidiaries to submit to an inspection under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002;

| — | In the entire alternative, annul Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2 adopted in the same terms with regard to ITM Entreprises S.A.S. on 9 February 2017, which were not served on their addressees; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the entire alternative, annul Decisions AT.40466 — Tute 1 and AT.40467- Tute 2 adopted in the same terms with regard to ITM Entreprises S.A.S. on 9 February 2017, which were not served on their addressees;

| — | Annul the decision taken by the Commission to seize and copy the data on communication and storage tools containing data concerning the private life of the users and to reject the applicants’ request for return of the data concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision taken by the Commission to seize and copy the data on communication and storage tools containing data concerning the private life of the users and to reject the applicants’ request for return of the data concerned;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental rights, of the right to inviolability of the dwelling and the right to effective judicial protection as a result of the lack of effective judicial remedy as regards the conditions of execution of the inspection decisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental rights, of the right to inviolability of the dwelling and the right to effective judicial protection as a result of the lack of effective judicial remedy as regards the conditions of execution of the inspection decisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the fundamental rights on the ground that insufficient reasons are stated for the inspection decisions and, as a result, the applicants are deprived of the fundamental guarantee required in that context. In particular, the decisions fail adequately to circumscribe the object and aim of the inspections and fail to state the presumptions and indications gathered by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the fundamental rights on the ground that insufficient reasons are stated for the inspection decisions and, as a result, the applicants are deprived of the fundamental guarantee required in that context. In particular, the decisions fail adequately to circumscribe the object and aim of the inspections and fail to state the presumptions and indications gathered by the Commission.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20(3) and (4) and 21 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the fundamental rights on the ground that the applicants were deprived of other fundamental guarantees. In particular, the inspection decisions are not limited in time, could be implemented without effective notice and without respecting the right to legal assistance, the right to silence and the applicants’ right to privacy and did not permit the applicants to mount an effective opposition, having regard to the constant reminders of penalties in the case of obstruction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20(3) and (4) and 21 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the fundamental rights on the ground that the applicants were deprived of other fundamental guarantees. In particular, the inspection decisions are not limited in time, could be implemented without effective notice and without respecting the right to legal assistance, the right to silence and the applicants’ right to privacy and did not permit the applicants to mount an effective opposition, having regard to the constant reminders of penalties in the case of obstruction.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the manner in which the Commission decided on the appropriateness, duration and extent of the inspections. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the manner in which the Commission decided on the appropriateness, duration and extent of the inspections.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental rights committed by the adoption of the decision refusing to ensure suitable protection for certain documents containing personal data in respect of which the applicants had requested the protection of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental rights committed by the adoption of the decision refusing to ensure suitable protection for certain documents containing personal data in respect of which the applicants had requested the protection of EU law.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, seeking, in the alternative, the annulment of the inspection decisions dated 9 February 2017 on the basis of the same pleas. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, seeking, in the alternative, the annulment of the inspection decisions dated 9 February 2017 on the basis of the same pleas.

---