CELEX: 62009TN0296
Language: en
Date: 2009-07-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-296/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission

24.10.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/27
            
         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission
   (Case T-296/09)
   2009/C 256/50
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM. In that decision, the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint, in which it claimed various infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC by several manufactures of ink-jet printers on their markets for ink-cartridges.
   In the reasoning for its action, the applicant claims, first, that the Commission did not take into account a large number of important elements of fact and, in so doing, infringed the principle of sound administration, the duty of care, the obligation to state reasons and the right to a fair hearing. Moreover, the applicant contends that the assessments made by the defendant in the contested decision, in particular with regard to the criteria for priority in treatment of the appeal procedure, are obviously incorrect and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Finally, it is submitted that an effective protection of competition, against the restrictions alleged by the applicant, can only be safeguarded by the defendant, because the national Competition Authorities and the Courts only have limited territorial jurisdiction.