# C_2023216EN.01005302.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/53

---

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission

(Case T-219/23)

(2023/C 216/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Maderbacher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2023) 1205 final of 15 February 2023 in Case AT.40492 — Fire Protection Bogies (Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 773/2004 regarding the rejection of complaints); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2023) 1205 final of 15 February 2023 in Case AT.40492 — Fire Protection Bogies (Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 773/2004 regarding the rejection of complaints);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 errors in law






  — | The Commission erred in taking the view in respect of point 7.1.1.5 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014, (1) that the application of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard concerning fire protection on railway vehicles (Requirements for fire behaviour of materials and components) was required only from 1 January 2018 on authorised railway vehicles in Germany and Austria. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors in law

—

The Commission erred in taking the view in respect of point 7.1.1.5 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014, (1) that the application of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard concerning fire protection on railway vehicles (Requirements for fire behaviour of materials and components) was required only from 1 January 2018 on authorised railway vehicles in Germany and Austria.

| — | The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted point 4.7 of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted point 4.7 of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard.

| — | The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted points 4.3 and 4.2(n) of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted points 4.3 and 4.2(n) of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard.

| — | The Commission erred in law in assessing the required burden of proof in the context of the complaint procedure under Regulation No 1/2003. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in law in assessing the required burden of proof in the context of the complaint procedure under Regulation No 1/2003. (2)

| — | The Commission erred in law in assessing the presence of collusion or an anti-competitive information exchange between manufacturers of railway vehicles established in the internal market (OEM). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in law in assessing the presence of collusion or an anti-competitive information exchange between manufacturers of railway vehicles established in the internal market (OEM).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made clear errors of assessment in its assessment of the complaint






  — | the Commission wrongly took the view that the OEM were not obliged to establish business relationships with the applicant |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made clear errors of assessment in its assessment of the complaint

—

the Commission wrongly took the view that the OEM were not obliged to establish business relationships with the applicant

| — | the Commission made several incorrect determinations concerning a coordinated misinterpretation of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard by the OEM. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission made several incorrect determinations concerning a coordinated misinterpretation of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard by the OEM.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of power
  The Commission misused its power and put the economic interests of the OEM before the security interests of rail passengers and staff in the EU railway system. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of power

The Commission misused its power and put the economic interests of the OEM before the security interests of rail passengers and staff in the EU railway system.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3)

The Commission deprived the applicant of its right to be heard in respect of the main results of the investigation and failed to provide it with sufficiently precise information that would have enabled it to take a relevant view of the contested decision prior to its adoption.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 of 18 November 2014 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 356, p. 228).

(2)  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).

(3)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

---