CELEX: 62019TN0251
Language: en
Date: 2019-04-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-251/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Wieland-Werke/Commission

24.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/59
            
         
      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Wieland-Werke/Commission
      (Case T-251/19)
      (2019/C 213/58)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and K. Winkelmann, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the European Commission in Case M.8900 — Wieland/Aurubis Rolled Products/Schwermetall of 5 February 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors by basing the contested decision on the flawed concept of a so-called ‘high-end’ sub-segment instead of basing the contested decision on the relevant market for rolled copper products as defined by the Commission itself.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission provided neither a definition nor a clear-cut delineation of the so- called ‘high-end’ sub-segment, which it — untenably — based its assessment on. The Commission’s approach is manifestly erroneous and speculative.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment by contradicting its own findings in the clearance decision in case M.8909 — KME/MKM.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied an unprecedented and untenable theory of harm sui generis inappropriately linking horizontal and non-horizontal effect and mixing up clear and strict guidance provided by the merger guidelines.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made manifest errors in the competitive assessment of its alleged horizontal concern blatantly failing to investigate obvious facts in establishing the competitive landscape of the relevant market.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessment regarding the switching possibilities of customers is manifestly erroneous.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission alleges price increases due to the transaction without having provided any respective evidence.
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in its assessment of the change from joint to sole control over Schwermetall. In particular, the Commission failed to take the necessary investigative steps.
               
            
                  9.
               
               
                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in the assessment of the commitments offered by the applicant.
               
            
                  10.
               
               
                  Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s handling of the remedy procedure and of the market test was not compliant with due process.
               
            
                  11.
               
               
                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements and due process. It refused to market test the first two commitments and launched the market test far too late in the process.