Case C-690/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2020 by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, breach of domicile, cartel, chain store, control of restrictive practices, restriction on competition, right to justice, sanction (EU)








C_2021062EN.01001901.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/19






Appeal brought on 18 December 2020 by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission
(Case C-690/20 P)
(2021/C 62/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon, Achats Marchandises Casino, (represented by: O. de Juvigny, A. Sunderland, I. Simic, G. Aubron, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul point (2) of the operative part of the judgment delivered on 5 October 2020 by the General Court in Case T-249/17;










—


Grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and, consequently, annul in its entirety European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 of 9 February 2017 on the basis of Articles 263 and 277 TFEU;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs of this appeal and those of the proceedings at first instance before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the contested judgment infringes:






1.


Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary interference by public authority in the sphere of a person's private activity, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, in that the General Court held (i) that these provisions did not require the Commission to record oral statements by suppliers and (ii) that the ‘summaries’ of these interviews drawn up unilaterally by the Commission services constituted valid proof that the Commission had evidence justifying European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054;










2.


Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary intervention by public authorities in the sphere of a person's private activity, in that the General Court held that the fundamental right to inviolability of the home did not require that European Commission Decision C(2017)1054:






(i)


limit in time the exercise of the Commission's powers of inspection; and










(ii)


limit the persons and premises that may be inspected;














3.


Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the General Court held that the legal regime applicable to Commission inspections satisfies the fundamental right to an effective remedy.