CELEX: 62020TN0680
Language: en
Date: 2020-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-680/20: Action brought on 11 November 2020 — Novelis v Commission

18.1.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 19/64
            
         
      Action brought on 11 November 2020 — Novelis v Commission
      (Case T-680/20)
      (2021/C 19/69)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Novelis Inc. (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völcker, T. Caspary and R. Benditz, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision of 31 August 2020 in Case No. M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris rejecting Novelis’ request for a one-month extension of the Closing Period pursuant to Clause 49 of the Novelis/Aleris Commitments;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted by the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Competition rather than the College of Commissioners in violation of the principle of collegiate responsibility.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s right to be heard.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons allowing the applicant to exercise its rights of defence in an effective manner.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment and ignores that the applicant has good cause to apply for an extension. The applicant further alleges that in light of its legal consequences and the availability of several less onerous means, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of proportionality.