# C_2023189EN.01003501.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/35

---

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Swenters v Commission

(Case T-142/23)

(2023/C 189/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Swenters (Hasselt, Belgium) (represented by: J. Coninx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well founded in form and content; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well founded in form and content;

| — | accordingly, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action against the decision of the Commission of 13 January 2023 rejecting its complaint concerning infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by SCR-Sibelco NV, Cimenteries C.B.R. Cementbedrijven NV, Grintbedrijf SBS NV, Kiezelgroeve Varenberg NV, Dragages Graviers et Travaux (Dragratra) NV, Sibelco Nederland BV, Van Nieuwpoort Groep BV, Heidelbergcement AG and Hülskens Holding GmbH & Co (Case AT.40683 — Belgian Sand), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligation to investigate and to state reasons
  The Commission breached its obligation to investigate carefully the circumstances and agreements cited by the applicant, despite the presence of hardcore restrictions of competition. The arguments raised by the applicant were rejected without any investigation and the Commission limits itself in the contested decision to summary and superficial determinations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligation to investigate and to state reasons

The Commission breached its obligation to investigate carefully the circumstances and agreements cited by the applicant, despite the presence of hardcore restrictions of competition. The arguments raised by the applicant were rejected without any investigation and the Commission limits itself in the contested decision to summary and superficial determinations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the interests of the Union.
  The Commission wrongly took the position that the infringements raised by the applicant appear to be limited to one Member State, thereby misunderstanding the international scope of the facts. The Commission also took no account of the duration of the infringements and wrongly drew the conclusion that the national courts and authorities were well placed to evaluate the anti-competitive practices cited by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the interests of the Union.

The Commission wrongly took the position that the infringements raised by the applicant appear to be limited to one Member State, thereby misunderstanding the international scope of the facts. The Commission also took no account of the duration of the infringements and wrongly drew the conclusion that the national courts and authorities were well placed to evaluate the anti-competitive practices cited by the applicant.

---