Case T-136/19: Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Bulgarian Energy Holding and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bulgaria, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), storage of hydrocarbons








C_2019164EN.01005301.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/53






Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Bulgarian Energy Holding and Others v Commission
(Case T-136/19)
(2019/C 164/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD (Sofia, Bulgaria), Bulgartransgaz EAD (Sofia), Bulgargaz EAD (Sofia) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, M. Powell and A. Kadri, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


adopt the measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry specified in section 3.6 of the application, or any other such measures as the Court deems necessary;










—


annul in whole or in part the Commission decision C(2018) 8806 final, of 17 December 2018, relating to proceedings under Article 102 of TFEU (AT.39849 — BEH Gas);










—


annul or reduce the level of the fine imposed;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements, thus infringing the applicants’ rights of defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision’s definition of the relevant market is vitiated by errors of law and fact, and by a failure to conduct a market analysis and state adequate reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision’s finding that Bulgargaz EAD, as one of the applicants, or the applicants together, held a dominant position on the market for capacity services, is vitiated by errors of law and in its appreciation of the facts.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the European Union treaties by failing to establish, to the requisite standard, that the conduct described in the contested decision amounts to an infringement of Article 102 TFEU, in light of errors in its application of the law and in its appreciation of the facts.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision’s findings as to the duration of the alleged infringement are vitiated by errors of law and in its appreciation of the facts.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that by adopting a decision pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 (1), the EU treaties were infringed, in the process.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the fine should be annulled or reduced in light of the contested decision’s failure to adhere to the defendant’s fining guidelines, or alternatively in the exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU on the basis that the fine is in all the circumstances disproportionate to the conduct being sanctioned.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).