# C_2017249EN.01004801.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/48

---

Action brought on 16 June 2017 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-380/17)

(2017/C 249/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) and Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, M. Raible, U. Soltész, G. Wecker and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul decision of the European Commission C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision of the European Commission C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission was not competent to decide on the Transaction since the transaction did not have a Union dimension. The Commission erred in law and infringed Art. 1 of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) by considering HeidelbergCement and Schwenk — rather than the direct acquirer Duna-Dráva Cement — as ‘undertakings concerned’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission was not competent to decide on the Transaction since the transaction did not have a Union dimension. The Commission erred in law and infringed Art. 1 of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) by considering HeidelbergCement and Schwenk — rather than the direct acquirer Duna-Dráva Cement — as ‘undertakings concerned’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2 and 8 EUMR and committed manifest errors of assessment and violated its duty to state reasons in defining the relevant geographic market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2 and 8 EUMR and committed manifest errors of assessment and violated its duty to state reasons in defining the relevant geographic market.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 2 (2) and (3) EUMR by prohibiting a transaction without establishing a significant impediment to effective competition in a substantial part of the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 2 (2) and (3) EUMR by prohibiting a transaction without establishing a significant impediment to effective competition in a substantial part of the internal market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the competitive assessment of the effects of the transaction. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the competitive assessment of the effects of the transaction.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and committed manifest errors of assessment in the assessment and rejection of the proposed remedy. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and committed manifest errors of assessment in the assessment and rejection of the proposed remedy.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several procedural errors and thus violated essential procedural requirements, the Applicants’ rights of defence and their fundamental rights, as well as the principle of good administration and its duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several procedural errors and thus violated essential procedural requirements, the Applicants’ rights of defence and their fundamental rights, as well as the principle of good administration and its duty of care.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to prohibit the acquisition of Cemex Hungary after it had referred the Hungarian part of the transaction for review by the Hungarian competition authority pursuant to Art. 4 (4) EUMR. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to prohibit the acquisition of Cemex Hungary after it had referred the Hungarian part of the transaction for review by the Hungarian competition authority pursuant to Art. 4 (4) EUMR.

---

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

---