Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:602
Date: 2017-09-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission (Case T-751/15) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015; Order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015 with which the applicant’s complaint of 18 November 2010 was rejected on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. 1 In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier. Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to. Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned. Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect. ____________ 1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).