Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:379
Date: 2016-06-30
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Judgment delivered after back reference
Origin: France

Action brought on 27 December 2007 - CB v Commission (Case T-491/07) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) GIE (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Georges, J. Ruiz Calzado, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought annul the contested decision in its entirety; order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/D1/38606 - GROUPEMENT DES CARTES BANCAIRES 'CB'), concerning tariff measures for membership of the Groupement applicable to new members and the 'sleeper member fee' applicable to members of the Groupement which have not developed significant business in banking cards since becoming members. In support of its application, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law. The first plea alleges infringement of Article 81 EC, the principle of equal treatment and a failure to state reasons on account of alleged defects in the method of analysis of the measures and the markets adopted by the Commission, in that it failed to take account of either the overall context, all the relevant information, or the specific circumstances in which they were adopted and in which their effects are felt. Second, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging infringement of Article 81(1) EC on account of errors of law, fact and assessment that the Commission made during the examination of the purpose of the measures which were notified to it. The applicant takes the view that the Commission has failed to comply with the obligation to examine the purpose of a decision by an association of undertakings and has not established that that purpose is anticompetitive. By the third plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 81(1) EC also because of errors of law, fact and assessment that the Commission made during the examination of the effect of the measures notified to it. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed Article 81(3) EC in the examination of the applicability of the four conditions required in order to obtain an exemption. The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from supposed omissions, contradictions and distortions of a number of its arguments in the contested decision. The final plea alleges infringement of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. ____________