Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/59 |

---

Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Biogaran v Commission

(Case T-677/14)

(2014/C 395/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Biogaran (Colombes, France) (represented by: T. Reymond, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul Articles 1, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (AT.39612-Perindopril (SERVIER)) so far as they relate to Biogaran; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, make use of its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce very substantially the fine imposed on Biogaran by Article 7 of that decision; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | grant Biogaran the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in the action brought by the companies Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited, and draw all appropriate conclusions therefrom in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs. |

Pleas in law and arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea, alleging an error of law in the contested decision, in that it does not show that the applicant participated in any infringement whatever of the competition rules.  The applicant claims that it did not commit in person any anti-competitive acts and could not be held liable for an amicable settlement agreement relating to patents concluded by its parent company, to which it was not party and of the content of which it was unaware. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea, alleging a distortion of the facts, in that the contested decision wrongly concluded that the licence and supply agreement which the applicant had concluded with the company Niche constituted a further incentive for that company to conclude the amicable settlement agreement relating to patents with the applicant’s parent company. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Third plea, alleging, in the alternative, an error of law, in that a fine was imposed on the applicant even though the infringement held to have occurred was novel in nature. |

---

[Top](#document1)