Case T-92/25: Action brought on 6 February 2025 – Google Ireland v Commission
Date: 2025-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, administrative supervision, digital single market, electronic commerce, equal treatment, mobile application, principle of proportionality, provision of services, rights of the defence, service








C_202502224EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2224


22.4.2025






Action brought on 6 February 2025 – Google Ireland v Commission


(Case T-92/25)

(C/2025/2224)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Google Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: L. Feiler, B. Hoorelbeke and C. Conte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission’s Implementing Decision C(2024) 8457 final of the European Commission of 27 November 2024, determining the supervisory fee applicable to Google Maps, Google Play, Google Search, Google Shopping and YouTube pursuant to Article 43(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘contested decision’), including its Annex; and










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare Articles 2(2), 5(2) and 5(4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/11271 (‘Delegated Regulation’) (1) invalid and inapplicable; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and the Applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the methodology used by the Commission to calculate the supervisory fee as laid down in Article 5(2) and 5(4) of the Delegated Regulation breaches Article 43(5)(b) and (c) of Regulation EU 2022/20652 (the ‘DSA’) (2) and should be declared invalid and inapplicable in accordance with Article 277 of the TFEU, because:










—


the Commission calculated the Fee Cap for the Applicant’s fee by reference to the worldwide profits of Alphabet Inc. (‘Alphabet’), rather than by reference to the worldwide annual net income of the applicant, in breach of Article 43(5)(c) of the DSA; and (3)











—


the mechanism the Commission applied to redistribute residual amounts related to other providers’ fees resulted in the applicant’s annual supervisory fee not being proportionate to the number of the applicant’s average monthly active recipients (‘AMAR’), in breach of Article 43(5)(b) of the DSA as well as of the fundamental principles of equal treatment and proportionality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the methodology used by the Commission to calculate the Fee Cap was applied in breach of Article 5(2) of the Delegated Regulation given that the applicant does not have consolidated accounts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the calculation of the AMAR is unlawful as it is based on a methodology established by an implementing act in breach of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and Article 43(4) of the DSA and relies on data accessed in breach of Article 4(2) of the Delegated Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in breach of the applicant’s right to a statement of reasons and its right to be heard as it does not clearly and accurately explain the methodology used to determine the applicant’s number of AMAR.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions infringes Article 43(2) of the DSA because it unlawfully charges a supervisory fee that also covers non-supervisory costs.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1127 of 2 March 2023 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the detailed methodologies and procedures regarding the supervisory fees charged by the Commission on providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines (OJ 2023, L 149, p. 16).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).

(3)  Pursuant to Article 43(5)(c) DSA, a provider of a ‘very large online platform’ or ‘very large online search engine’ shall not pay in any given year a supervisory fee exceeding 0,05 % of that provider’s annual worldwide net profit in the preceding financial year (‘Fee Cap’).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2224/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)