CELEX: C2004/262/97
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-339/04: Action brought on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

23.10.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/53
            
         Action brought on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-339/04)
   (2004/C 262/97)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A., established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by Hugues Calvet et Marie-Cécile Rameau, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Commission of 18 May 2004 ordering the applicant, and all undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed the duty of cooperation with the national courts and authorities pursuant to Article 10 EC and Regulation No 1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to disclose to the national court which authorised the inspection in question the existence of proceedings pending before the French competition authority concerning the alleged infringements of Article 82 EC by the applicant and of a decision of the same authority of 11 May 2004. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the French competition authority remains in charge of the case and that consequently the Commission should not have intervened in it.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision infringes the obligation carefully and impartially to examine all relevant evidence in the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of proportionality. Lastly, it alleges a manifest error of assessment.
   
      (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 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).