Case T-451/20: Action brought on 15 July 2020 — Facebook Ireland v Commission
Date: 2020-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, restrictive trade practice, right to justice, rights of the defence, social media








C_2020287EN.01003902.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/39






Action brought on 15 July 2020 — Facebook Ireland v Commission
(Case T-451/20)
(2020/C 287/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Facebook Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Jowell, QC, D. Bailey, Barrister, J. Aitken, D. Das, S. Malhi, R. Haria, M. Quayle, Solicitors and T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Decision C(2020) 3011 final, dated 4 May 2020, and notified to the Applicant on 5 May 2019, taken pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No1/2003 in the course of an investigation in Case AT.40628 — Facebook Data-related practices;










—


in the alternative: (i) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Data Decision in so far as it unlawfully requests internal documents that are irrelevant to the investigation; and/or (ii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Data Decision in order that independent EEA-qualified lawyers may be permitted to conduct a manual review of the documents captured by the Contested Data Decision in order to exclude from production documents that are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation and/or personal documents; and/or (iii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Data Decision in so far as it unlawfully requires production of irrelevant documents that are personal and/or private in nature;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Data Decision fails to indicate the subject of the Commission’s investigation in sufficiently clear or consistent terms, contrary to the requirements of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principle of legal certainty, and in breach of both Facebook’s rights of defence and the right to good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Data Decision, by requiring a document production consisting of a clear majority of wholly irrelevant and/or personal documents, infringes the principle of necessity reflected in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and/or violates Facebook’s rights of defence and/or constitutes a misuse of powers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Data Decision, by requiring the production of so many wholly irrelevant and personal documents (for example: correspondence regarding medical issues relating to employees and their families; correspondence at times of bereavement; documents relating to personal wills, guardianship, childcare and personal financial investments; job applications and references; internal appraisals; and documents assessing security risks to the Facebook campus and personnel), infringes the fundamental right to privacy, the principle of proportionality and the fundamental right to good administration. Therefore, the Contested Data Decision breaches the fundamental rights to privacy, as protected by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Contested Data Decision also infringes the principle of proportionality as it is excessively broad in scope and insufficiently targeted to the subject-matter of the Commission’s investigation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Data Decision fails to explain why its search terms will only identify documents that are necessary and relevant for the Commission’s investigation or to explain why any relevance review by external, EEA qualified lawyers is not permitted or to explain or provide for any legally binding, data room for personal and/or wholly irrelevant documents and is therefore based on insufficient reasoning, contrary to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU.