Case T-260/25: Action brought on 16 April 2025 – Leidos and Others v Commission
Date: 2025-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, harmonisation of standards, principle of proportionality, radio telecommunications, regulation of telecommunications, scanner, technical specification, technical standard, transmission network, waveband








C_202503080EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3080


10.6.2025






Action brought on 16 April 2025 – Leidos and Others v Commission


(Case T-260/25)

(C/2025/3080)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Leidos, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. (Wilmington), Leidos Security Detection & Automation UK Ltd (Bedford, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. van Haastrecht, J. van den Biggelaar, M. de Graef, J. Schouten and W. Seinen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105 of 22 January 2025 amending Decision 2006/771/EC updating harmonised technical conditions in the area of radio spectrum use for short-range devices and repealing Implementing Decision 2014/641/EU on harmonised technical conditions of radio spectrum use by wireless audio programme making and special events equipment in the Union (‘the Implementing Decision’); (1)











—


or, in the alternative, partially annul the Implementing Decision, regarding the definition of security scanners as specified in the Annex in Table 2, under point ‘l’ (‘Security scanners are a specific type of radio determination applications which are used to detect objects carried by a person or on a person’s body for security screening purposes without making any physical contact’) and/or partially annul the Implementing Decision, regarding the frequency bands allocated to security scanners in the Annex in Table 2, specifically the frequencies allocated to band nos 97 and 99;










—


or, in the alternative, annul the CEPT Report 85 and the ECC Report 344, (2) which serve as the technical foundation for the Implementing Decision, and order the Commission to include the applicant in the working groups;










—


or, in the alternative, partially annul the CEPT Report 85 and the ECC Report 344, in as far as they serve as the technical foundation for the inclusion of the definition of security scanners and/or band nos 97 and 99 in the Implementing Decision, and order the Commission to include the applicant in the working groups;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the European Commission.










—


It is argued that security scanners cannot be qualified as short-range-devices;










—


Millimetre security scanners, it is maintained, fall outside the scope of the class of ‘radio determination devices’ as meant in the Radio Equipment Directive; (3)











—


Security scanners do not operate for the purpose of radio communication- and/or radio-determination;










—


It is furthermore argued that the Commission has erred in following the procedure for an implementing act, whereas it should have followed the procedure for a delegated act.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of essential procedural requirements.










—


It is maintained that the Commission infringed its internal rules of procedure, including the requirement to consult, and the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Treaties and general rules of EU law.










—


It is argued that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration and its duty of care;










—


Further, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality;










—


The applicant also maintains that the Commission infringed Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the European Commission.










—


The applicant argues that the actual effects of the Implementing Decision are contrary to its objectives and the broader policy objectives of spectrum harmonisation;










—


It is further maintained that the harmonisation in question leads to a de facto monopolisation of the market for one undertaking, thereby restricting rather than enhancing market efficiency and the proper functioning of the internal market.






(1)  OJ L 2025/105.

(2)  Readers may wish to consult https://www.cept.org/ in relation to the CEPT and ECC bodies.

(3)  Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC (OJ L 153, 22.5.2014, p. 62).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3080/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)