Case C-384/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 June 2025 by Natixis against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 March 2025 in Case T-449/21, Natixis v Commission
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Eurobond, European Economic Area, bond, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_202504148EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4148


4.8.2025






Appeal brought on 10 June 2025 by Natixis against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 March 2025 in Case T-449/21, Natixis v Commission


(Case C-384/25 P)

(C/2025/4148)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Natixis (represented by: J.-J. Lemonnier, avocat, M. García, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal, insofar as it dismissed the action brought by the appellant in Case T-449/21 and ordered the appellant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission; and










—


make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the CJEU to give final judgment in the matter and set aside Case AT.40324 European Government Bonds (1) (‘Contested Decision’) insofar as it applies to the appellant; alternatively, to refer the case back to the General Court for reassessment; and










—


in any case, to order the Commission to bear the appellants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
The first ground is based on the General Court's failure to assess whether the Commission exercised its discretion to find a legitimate interest in line with the test set out in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 (OJ L 1, 4.1.3, p.1-25) (‘Article 7(1)’) and Community Court jurisprudence. The General Court failed to identify, interpret and apply the legal standard required to establish a legitimate interest under Article 7(1). The legitimate interests of the Commission were generic, not particular to the case and not specific to the circumstances of the Appellant. The General Court concluded in error that the Commission had established a legitimate interest to make a finding of infringement against the appellant.
The second ground is based on the General Court's error of law in considering that the Commission did not breach the principle of proportionality in making a finding of infringement against the appellant. The General Court misrepresented the arguments put forward by the appellant, which led to a failure to consider them fully on their substance and conduct a complete assessment as to whether the Commission acted proportionately.
The third ground is based on the General Court's error of law in concluding that the Commission did not infringe the appellant's rights of defence. The General Court failed to recognise that the Commission legally classified additional factors as a further purported 'legitimate interest' for the first time in the Contested Decision, to justify addressing the Contested Decision to the appellant. The appellant was therefore denied the opportunity to comment on these additional factors in breach of its rights of defence. Had the appellant been notified during the Commission's investigation and given the opportunity to comment, it would have been able to better defend itself.


(1)  
            OJ 2021, C 418, p. 11.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4148/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)