# C_2017231EN.01002902.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/29

---

Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission

(Case T-254/17)

(2017/C 231/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intermarché Casino Achats (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Utzschneider and J. Jourdan, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 inapplicable to the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 inapplicable to the present case;

| — | Annul, on the basis of Articles 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU, European Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 of 9 February 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, on the basis of Articles 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU, European Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 of 9 February 2017;

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 ordering the applicant to submit to an inspection under Article 20(1) and (4) of 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; ‘the contested decision’). According to the applicant, the contested decision is unlawful in that it is based on provisions which run counter to the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’). In that regard, it argues that:






  — | Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 infringes the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for any effective means of redress against the Commission’s inspection operations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 ordering the applicant to submit to an inspection under Article 20(1) and (4) of 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; ‘the contested decision’). According to the applicant, the contested decision is unlawful in that it is based on provisions which run counter to the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’). In that regard, it argues that:

—

Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 infringes the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for any effective means of redress against the Commission’s inspection operations;

| — | Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 also infringes the principle of equality of arms guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for access to the documents underlying the Commission’s inspection decision or their communication. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 also infringes the principle of equality of arms guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for access to the documents underlying the Commission’s inspection decision or their communication.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons vitiating the contested decision since it is insufficiently reasoned contrary to the requirements of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. The applicant is of the opinion that the contested decision fails entirely to explain how the applicant may be involved in any offence and nor does it state precisely the period during which offences against competition law are suspected to have occurred. That infringement of the obligation to state reasons is all the more injurious since the contested decision does not include the documents on which it is based. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons vitiating the contested decision since it is insufficiently reasoned contrary to the requirements of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. The applicant is of the opinion that the contested decision fails entirely to explain how the applicant may be involved in any offence and nor does it state precisely the period during which offences against competition law are suspected to have occurred. That infringement of the obligation to state reasons is all the more injurious since the contested decision does not include the documents on which it is based.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful since it was adopted by the Commission without the Commission having sufficiently serious indications giving rise to suspicion that an offence against competition law had been committed and so to justify an inspection in the applicant’s premises. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful since it was adopted by the Commission without the Commission having sufficiently serious indications giving rise to suspicion that an offence against competition law had been committed and so to justify an inspection in the applicant’s premises.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it does not comply with the fundamental right of the inviolability of the dwelling provided for in Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR as a result of the disproportionate nature of the inspection which it orders and the lack of sufficient guarantee against abuses. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it does not comply with the fundamental right of the inviolability of the dwelling provided for in Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR as a result of the disproportionate nature of the inspection which it orders and the lack of sufficient guarantee against abuses.

---