Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| European flag | Official Journal  of the European Union | EN  C series |

---

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | C/2025/1124 | 24.2.2025 |

Action brought on 10 January 2025 – Nvidia v Commission

(Case T-15/25)

(C/2025/1124)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nvidia Corp. (Santa Clara, California, United States) (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Magraner Oliver and T. Verheyden, lawyers, and P. Stuart, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul Commission’s decision of 31 October 2024, on the request for referral by Italy to the Commission pursuant to Article 22(1) of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) [(1)](#ntr1-C_202501124EN.000101-E0001) and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, in Case M.11766, NVIDIA / Run:ai (the Decision); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay NVIDIA’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging unlawful interpretation of Article 22 EUMR and breaches of the Court’s judgment of 3 September 2024, Illumina v Commission, C-611/22 P. The Decision unlawfully accepted a referral request from the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza (AGCM), regarding a transaction that fell below the EU Merger Regulation and Member State merger control thresholds, based on the AGCM’s exercise of loosely defined, ex post, discretionary call-in powers. The Decision’s interpretation of Article 22 as allowing such a referral breaches the general principles of institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality, and equal treatment. It is also incompatible with Article 22’s legislative history, context, and intended object, and with the principle that exceptions and derogations to a provision ought to be interpreted narrowly. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is unlawful on the grounds that the referral request to which it relates, introduced by the AGCM pursuant to Article 22 EUMR, was made out of time. |

---

---

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1124/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

---

[Top](#document1)