CELEX: 62018TN0410
Language: en
Date: 2018-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-410/18: Action brought on 4 July 2018 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission

201807270092025312018/C 285/624102018TC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180704444521Case T-410/18: Action brought on 4 July 2018 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN4410120180704EN0062441452Action brought on 4 July 2018 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-410/18)2018/C 285/62Language of the case: German
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Silgan Closures GmbH (Munich, Germany), Silgan Holdings Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: H. Wollmann, D. Seeliger, R. Grafunder and V. Weiss, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU in so far as it relates to the applicants;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By the present action, the applicants request that the Court annul in part Commission Decision C(2018) 2466 final of 19 April 2018 on the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (
         1
      ) in case AT.40522 — Pandora.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity
            In the first plea in law the applicants complain that, by the contested decision, the Commission has withdrawn the legal basis from proceedings before the German Federal Cartel Office in the same case, such proceedings having been pending for more than three years to date and having reached the decision stage.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Infringement of the principle of proportionality
            In the second plea in law the applicants allege that the contested decision was neither necessary in order to allow the Commission to carry out the general check that it wished to undertake, nor appropriate, taking into account the interests of both sides, given its disadvantages for the applicants.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Insufficient justification
            In the third plea in law the applicants argue that, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, in the contested decision the Commission listed no reasons as to why it considered that, in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, it was necessary and justified to initiate proceedings.
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Misuse of powers
            In the fourth plea in law the applicants allege that the Commission initiated proceedings with the aim of making it possible to impose penalties on the applicants under the system of penalties established in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (
                  2
               )
         
      (
         1
      )	Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
   (
         2
      )	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).