CELEX: 62015TN0480
Language: en
Date: 2015-08-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-480/15: Action brought on 19 August 2015 — KZ and Others v Commission

12.10.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 337/39
            
         Action brought on 19 August 2015 — KZ and Others v Commission
   (Case T-480/15)
   (2015/C 337/44)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: KZ (Poland), LA (Poland), LB (Austria), LC (Austria) (represented by: S. Dudzik, legal adviser, and J. Budzik, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul European Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final of 19 June 2015 in Case AT.39864 — BASF, rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 772/2004 (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of effective legal protection and of the right to an effective judicial remedy
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           By rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 in a situation resulting in a breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, to the detriment of the applicants — even though the competent national body for the protection of competition was unable to institute proceedings on the ground that the period provided for under national law for instituting proceedings relating to a breach of competition law had expired, and the applicants also did not have the possibility effectively to seek compensation by bringing an action before a national court — the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights to effective legal protection and to an effective judicial remedy.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)
               
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           By proceeding on the assumption that the interest of the European Union does not justify the bringing of proceedings on the basis of the applicants’ complaint, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           By rejecting the applicants’ complaint and refusing to bring proceedings on the basis of the unfounded assumption that the conditions governing the finding of a breach of Article 101 TFEU set out in the judgment of the Court of 17 July 1998 in Case T-111/96 ITT Promedia v. Commission are not applicable in the case of abuse of criminal or administrative procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU.
                        
                     
         
      (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 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).