Case T-584/19: Action brought on 22 August 2019 – thyssenkrupp v Commission
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, dominant position, horizontal agreement, import (EU), market supervision, merger, steel, vehicle parts








C_2019357EN.01004101.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/41






Action brought on 22 August 2019 – thyssenkrupp v Commission
(Case T-584/19)
(2019/C 357/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: thyssenkrupp AG (Duisburg und Essen, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann, J. Ziebarth, and M. Dästner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision in its entirety;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those related to any intervener.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in defining novel relevant product markets for hot-dip galvanized steel for automotive applications (Auto HDG) and for certain types of Packaging Steel and that this led to a misguided analysis of post-merger market power, in particular due to the Decision’s failure to acknowledge significant elements of demand and supply side substitutability. Therefore the applicant considers that the defendant did wrongfully not include electrogalvanized steel in its market definition and missed out on the interchangeability of galvanized industrial and automotive products.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in defining EEA-wide instead of worldwide markets for both Auto HDG and Packaging Steel. The defendant therefore misconstrued the results of its market investigation and assessment of internal documents provided by the Parties, and did not adhere to proper procedure and the principles of due process by failing to engage in a sufficient economic analysis. Moreover, the Commission allegedly relied on inconclusive and unpersuasive evidence to conclude that import flows do not influence EEA pricing for Auto HDG and Packaging Steel.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and erred in substance by allegedly finding a significant impediment to effective competition in relation to a separate product market for Auto HDG.










4.


Fourth plea in law, asserting that with regard to the alleged separate product markets for Tinplate (TP), electrolytic chromium coated steel (ECCS) and Laminated Steel, the Commission’s competitive assessment is based on an incorrect interpretation and application of the SIEC test which unlawfully combines incompatible elements of an SIEC resulting from single dominance and from horizontal non-coordinated (oligopolistic) effects. The applicant also claims a manifest error of assessment regarding imports which is based on selectively picked quotes from the market investigation and a few misinterpreted internal documents which lead to the defendant unduly ignoring the relevance of high levels of imports for TP and ECCS and the potential of re-rollers entering the market as they have done in other parts of the world.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the remedies offered for Auto HDG and Packaging Steel were unduly dismissed by the defendant. The applicant also claims that the Commission failed to perform a proper market test of the remedies offered.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to provide a sufficient reasoning with regard to its discontinuation of preliminary concerns as they were expressed in the SO with regard to Grain Oriented Electrical Steel (GOES).










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a procedural error by not enforcing replies to numerous requests for information sent out to market participants in its Phase I and Phase II investigation which in many cases were not answered. The applicant submits that this resulted to a procedural error and to the distortion of evidence.