Case T-2/25: Action brought on 3 January 2025 – ÖBB-Holding and Others v Commission
Date: 2025-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, carriage of passengers, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), used goods, vehicle on rails








C_202500931EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/931


17.2.2025






Action brought on 3 January 2025 – ÖBB-Holding and Others v Commission


(Case T-2/25)

(C/2025/931)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Österreichische Bundesbahnen-Holding Aktiengesellschaft, ÖBB-Personenverkehr Aktiengesellschaft, ÖBB-Technische Services-Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Polster, H. Kühnert and R. Klotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2024)7355 final of 23 October 2024 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.40401-Second-hand Rolling Stock) insofar as it holds the applicants liable for an infringement which started before 7 September 2012, and modify the fine imposed on the applicants in Article 2(b) of the Decision by taking into account the infringement’s shorter duration;










—


partially annul Article 2(b) of the Decision, imposing a fine of EUR 16,712,000 on the applicants, and reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; (1)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging material errors of fact in the findings of the contested decision. The Commission infringed the presumption of innocence by finding that the infringement started before 7 September 2012.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, Treaties or any rule of law when determining the applicants’ relevant values of sales.










3.


Alternatively, in case the second plea is being rejected, the third plea concerns the Commission’s infringement of essential procedural requirements, Treaties or any rule of law by applying an additional deterrence factor against the applicants.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, equal treatment and good administration when setting the basic amount of the fine.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Commission when setting the fine by omitting to adjust the basic amount and to grant the applicants any reduction of the fine due to mitigating circumstances.






(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 2003 L 1, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/931/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)