EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0612
Case T-612/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
Case T-612/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
Case T-612/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
OJ C 369, 30.10.2017, p. 37–38
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.10.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 369/37 |
Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
(Case T-612/17)
(2017/C 369/51)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Google Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) and Alphabet Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: T. Graf, R. Snelders and C. Thomas, lawyers, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitor, R. O’Donoghue and D. Piccinin, Barristers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission decision of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFUE and Article 54 of the Agreement on the EEA (AT.39741 — Google Search (Shopping)); |
— |
in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the Applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction, and |
— |
in any event, order the Commission to bear the Applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favoured a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product results (Product Universals).
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favours a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product ads (Shopping Units).
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct diverted Google search traffic.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct is likely to have anticompetitive effects.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs by treating quality improvements that constitute competition on the merits as abusive.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine.
|