11.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 266/13 |
Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-616/18, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
(Case C-255/22 P)
(2022/C 266/16)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Appellant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, radca prawny, and T. Kaźmierczak, adwokat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland, Gazprom PJSC, Gazprom export LLC, and Overgas Inc.
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
— |
annul the contested decision of the European Commission in its entirety; |
— |
in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court for review in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) |
The General Court erred in law, infringing Article 9(1) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation No 1/2003’) by:
|
(2) |
The General Court erred in law, infringing Article 194 TFEU by incorrectly interpreting that provision and, as a result, incorrectly failing to apply it, which led to Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 194 TFEU being deprived of their effectiveness; |
(3) |
The General Court erred in law, infringing Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 by incorrectly interpreting the concept of ‘manifest error of assessment’ when examining the manner in which the Commission had conducted the assessment of complex economic and technical issues when examining the adequacy of the commitments, which led it incorrectly to conclude that the Commission had not made a manifest error of assessment in respect of the adequacy of the commitments; |
(4) |
The General Court erred in law, infringing Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by incorrectly interpreting that provision with regard to its indicating, as a basis for reopening the proceedings:
|