EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/32

Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Mylan Laboratories and Mylan v Commission

(Case T-682/14)

(2014/C 431/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Mylan Laboratories Ltd (Hyderabad, India); and Mylan, Inc. (Canonsburg, United States) (represented by: S. Kon, C. Firth and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 2, 7 and 8 of Commission decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in Case AT.39612 Perindopril (Servier) insofar as they pertain to the applicants; or

— in the alternative annul Article 7 of Commission decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in Case AT.39612 Perindopril (Servier) insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants; or

— in the further alternative reduce the fine imposed on the applicants pursuant to Article 7 of Commission decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in Case AT.39612 Perindopril (Servier); or

— in the final alternative annul Articles 2, 7 and 8 of Commission decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in Case AT.39612 Perindopril (Servier) insofar as they pertain to Mylan Inc.;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains errors of facts and manifest errors of assessment in its analysis of the relevant factual, legal and economic context in which the patent settlement agreement between Mylan Laboratories (formerly known as Matrix Laboratories) and Servier was entered into.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is flawed as a matter of law and fact in finding that Matrix was a potential competitor to Servier.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish to the requisite legal standard that the patent settlement agreement had the object of restricting competition contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish to the requisite legal standard that the patent settlement agreement had the effect of restricting competition contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging in the alternative that the Commission has infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) as well as the principles of proportionality, nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege and legal certainty in imposing a fine on the applicants.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging in the further alternative that the Commission has imposed a fine which is manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged infringement.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Mylan Inc.’s procedural rights of defence by reformulating, without issuing a supplementary Statement of Objections, the basis upon which liability is attributed to Mylan Inc. in the contested decision in a manner that differs from the basis upon which such liability had been imposed on a preliminary basis in the Statement of Objections.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has (i) breached the principle of personal responsibility and presumption of innocence in holding Mylan Inc. liable for the alleged infringement of Matrix; and (ii) committed manifest errors of assessment in finding that Mylan Inc. exercised decisive influence over the conduct of Matrix during the relevant period.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).