CELEX: 62018TN0317
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-317/18: Action brought on 18 May 2018 — Fugro v Commission

201806220601970432018/C 240/693172018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180518596021Case T-317/18: Action brought on 18 May 2018 — Fugro v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5910120180518EN0069591602Action brought on 18 May 2018 — Fugro v Commission
   (Case T-317/18)2018/C 240/69Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Fugro NV (Leidschendam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Snoep and V. van Weperen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul the contested decision;
         
      
            —
         
         
            in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1(2) of the decision;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the European Commission of the European Union to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principle of proportionality.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The Commission did not enjoy a broad discretionary power in adopting the Decision and the review of whether the Decision breaches the principle of proportionality should not be limited to reviewing whether the Decision is clearly or manifestly inappropriate in light of the objectives pursued. The Decision breaches the principle of proportionality since:
                     
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Decision exceeds the limits of what is necessary to attain the pursued objectives;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Commission did not choose the least onerous measure from the available appropriate measures; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the disadvantages caused by the Decision are disproportionate to the objectives pursued.
                           
                        
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     Even if the Commission would enjoy a wide discretionary power, the Decision is nonetheless a manifestly inappropriate means of achieving the objectives pursued.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision infringes Fugro’s right to property ex Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Fugro’s freedom to conduct a business ex Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The Decision infringes Fugro’s right to property as it destroys Fugro’s business. The loss of property is significant and goes beyond a reasonable economic risk; and
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     the Decision affects the very existence of Fugro’s freedom to conduct a business.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principle of non-distortion of competition.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The Decision prevents the European Union from fulfilling the essential task of establishing an internal market free from distortion since:
                     
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Decision results in a public sector intervention in the offshore GNSS Augmentation services market incompatible with the principles of undistorted competition; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              contrary to Article 3(3) TEU and Protocol No 27, the Decision interferes with the offshore GNSS Augmentation services market where there is no market failure.