Case T-111/08: Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
Date: 2008-03-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European currency, action for annulment (EU), competition law, international payment

C 116/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and
others v Commission

In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission demands
an unlawfully high standard of proof in order to fulfil the condi-
tions of Article 81(3) EC.

(Case T-111/08)

(2008/C 116/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Italy v Commission
and EESC

Applicants: MasterCard Inc. (Purchase, United States), Mastercard
International
(Purchase, United States) and MasterCard
Europe SPRL (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V.
Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers, and T. Sharpe, QC)

Inc.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-117/08)

(2008/C 116/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

Parties

— Declare the present application admissible;

— annul the decision in its entirety; or, in the alternative, annul

Articles 3,4,5 and 7 of the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings, including the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

COMP/38.580 — Commercial

By means of this application, the applicants seek the annulment
of Commission Decision C(2007) 6474 final of 19 December
2007 in Cases COMP/34.579 — MasterCard, COMP/36.518 —
EuroCommerce,
Cards
(MasterCard) and, in the alternative, of the specific provisions of
the decision concerning the imposed remedy, on the grounds
that the decision is vitiated by errors of law, insufficient or lack
of reasoning and manifest errors of fact. In addition, the applica-
tion is based on the violation of the applicants' rights of defence
during the Commission's investigation. Specifically, the appli-
following grounds, variously based on
cants
Articles 229 EC, 230 EC and 253 EC, as well as the principles
of EC law.

invoke

the

First, according to the applicants, the Commission misdirected
itself in law and in fact, a) by failing to properly identify a
restriction of competition in the sense of Article 81(1) EC and
Article 53(1) EEA, b) as to the proper standard to be applied in
assessing an objective necessity under
the above-mentioned
provisions.

Second, the applicants submit that the Commission misdirected
itself in law and in fact in holding that the 'MasterCard Payment
Organisation' constitutes an association of undertakings within
the meaning of Articles 81(1) EC and 53(1) EEA, and that the
cross-border interchange fee and related rules constitute a deci-
sion thereof.

Third, the applicants claim that the Commission is guilty of
several infringements of essential procedural requirements and
that
imposed are
disproportionate.

the remedy and enforcement measures it

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities, Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee

Form of order sought

— The Italian Republic challenges before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities the following acts
published by the EESC:

(1) vacancy notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secre-
tary-general in the Secretariat of the European Economic
and Social Committee, published only in the English,
French and German versions of the Official Journal of the
European Union C 316 A of 28 December 2007;

(2) corrigendum to the vacancy notice published only in the
the Official
the European Union C 25 A of 30 January

English, French and German versions of
Journal of
2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Case T-156/07 Spain v Commission (1).

lack of the requisite competence,

In addition to infringement of Regulation No 1/58 and
Article 290 EC, the applicant submits in particular, on the
ground of
infringement of
Article 12 EC, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European
Union and a number of provisions of the Staff Regulations of
the European Civil Service, as well as a failure to state adequate
reasons and misuse of power in the present case.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 42.