# C_2023063EN.01006701.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/67

---

Action brought on 10 January 2023 — Illumina v Commission

(Case T-5/23)

(2023/C 63/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Illumina, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister-at-Law, and F. González Díaz, M. Siragusa and T. Spolidoro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2022 in Case M.10938 — Illumina/GRAIL (the Decision); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2022 in Case M.10938 — Illumina/GRAIL (the Decision);

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

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 that the Decision erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in finding that the conditions for adopting interim measures ex Article 8(5)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger Regulation) were met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in finding that the conditions for adopting interim measures ex Article 8(5)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger Regulation) were met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is disproportionate, commits errors of facts and assessment, fails to provide sufficient reasons, and/or is vitiated by lack of motivation, in finding that the interim measures were necessary and appropriate to the objectives of Article 8(5)(c) of the Merger Regulation). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is disproportionate, commits errors of facts and assessment, fails to provide sufficient reasons, and/or is vitiated by lack of motivation, in finding that the interim measures were necessary and appropriate to the objectives of Article 8(5)(c) of the Merger Regulation).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s provisions on funding are disproportionate as they unduly restrict Illumina’s ability to review the proportionality of funding requests. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s provisions on funding are disproportionate as they unduly restrict Illumina’s ability to review the proportionality of funding requests.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision unlawfully delegates the Commission’s enforcement powers to a monitoring trustee and requires the applicant to bear the costs associated with the monitoring trustee’s activities. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision unlawfully delegates the Commission’s enforcement powers to a monitoring trustee and requires the applicant to bear the costs associated with the monitoring trustee’s activities.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision disproportionately excludes the applicant’s pre-existing contractual obligations from exceptions to ring-fencing obligations, and fails to provide adequate reasons for this exclusion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision disproportionately excludes the applicant’s pre-existing contractual obligations from exceptions to ring-fencing obligations, and fails to provide adequate reasons for this exclusion.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision imposes excessive, disproportionate, and likely unenforceable restraints on the Parties’ recruitment activities during the interim period. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision imposes excessive, disproportionate, and likely unenforceable restraints on the Parties’ recruitment activities during the interim period.

---

(1)  OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1.

---