Case T-109/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Vodafone España and Vodafone Group v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), dominant position, mobile phone, telecommunications, transmission network

C 131/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Vodafone España and
Vodafone Group v Commission

(Case T-109/06)

(2006/C 131/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

ii) should have identified serious doubts as to whether the
CMT had applied the concept of significant market power
correctly according to the case law of the Court of Justice
and the Court of First Instance; and

iii) should have identified serious doubts as to whether the
CMT had collated and examined all relevant evidence.

Further, the applicants allege that the contested Decision leads
to unequal treatment of undertakings in comparable situations
and creates obstacles to the single market as the Decision is
inconsistent with other decisions taken under Article 7 of the
Framework Directive.

Applicants: Vodafone España, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Vodafone
Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom)
J.
Flynn, QC, E. McKnight and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Soli-
citors)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed
the applicants' procedural rights by not opening a second
phase investigation and by depriving the applicants of the
opportunity to comment, during the Commission's first phase
investigation, on additional information that the Commission
obtained from the CMT.

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of the decision of the Commission
comprised in its letter dated 30 January 2006 addressed to
the Spanish CMT; and

— order the Commission to pay Vodafone's costs of

the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the
The applicants seek the annulment of a decision of
Commission of
the European Communities contained in a
letter dated 30 January 2006 to the Spanish Comisión del
Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (‘CMT’), adopted pursuant
to Article 7 of the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regula-
tory framework for electronic communications networks and
services (1) (‘Framework Directive’).

By the contested Decision the Commission endorsed, at the end
of the first phase investigation provided for in Article 7 of the
Framework Directive and without opening a further
two
month investigation pursuant to Article 7(4) (‘second phase’), a
proposed measure notified to the Commission by the CMT by
which the CMT had provisionally decided to:

i) find that Vodafone and two other undertakings (Telefonica
and Amena)
jointly enjoyed significant market power by
holding a position of collective dominance on the wholesale
market for access and call origination on public mobile tele-
phone networks in Spain; and

ii) impose an obligation on the three undertakings to respond
to reasonable requests for access to their networks and to
offer reasonable terms for the supply of access services.

The applicants submit that the contested Decision infringes
Article 7 of
the Framework Directive as the Commission
should have opened a second phase investigation because it

i) should have realised that the CMT could not, by reference
to the evidence and reasoning contained in the proposed
measure, justify a finding of joint significant market power;

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of

the
Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for
electronic communications networks and services
(Framework
Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM

(Case T-112/06)

(2006/C 131/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands)
sented by: Jonas Gulliksson and Jens Olsson, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
Walter Waibel

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision, and

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred both in these
proceedings and in the invalidity proceedings before OHIM.