EN
3.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/69
Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Symrise v Commission (Case T-263/23) (2023/C 235/82) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: T. Kuhn, M. Rust, T.-M. Wienke, L. Bär and J. Jourdan, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the Commission’s decision C(2023) 1103 final of 10 February 2023 ordering an inspection at Symrise AG and all of its directly and indirectly controlled subsidiaries pursuant to article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1) (AT.40826 — Rose); — order the Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings.
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 a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights of inviolability of private premises and privacy as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The applicant submits that the Decision ordering the inspection at the applicant’s premises is (i) arbitrary because the Commission did not have sufficient indicia providing reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant’s involvement in any competition law infringement, and (ii) constitutes a disproportionate interference with its fundamental rights of inviolability of private premises and privacy as it contains no limitation in time. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(4) Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Commission’s obligation to state reasons as set forth in Article 296(2) TFEU.
The applicant submits that the Decision infringes the Commission’s obligation to specify clearly and precisely the subject matter of the inspection, in violation of Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Commission’s duty to state reasons clearly in its decisions.
More specifically, the wording of the Decision was such that it did not place the applicant in a position to understand the scope of the inspection, and thus exercise its rights of defence.
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Action brought on 11 May 2023 — VDK v Commission (Case T-265/23) (2023/C 235/83) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Verband der Deutschen Kutter- und Küstenfischer e.V. (VDK) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Waller, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission