This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0284
Case T-284/24: Action brought on 29 May 2024 – Nuctech Warsaw and Nuctech Netherlands v Commission
Case T-284/24: Action brought on 29 May 2024 – Nuctech Warsaw and Nuctech Netherlands v Commission
Case T-284/24: Action brought on 29 May 2024 – Nuctech Warsaw and Nuctech Netherlands v Commission
OJ C, C/2024/4107, 8.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4107/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2024/4107 |
8.7.2024 |
Action brought on 29 May 2024 – Nuctech Warsaw and Nuctech Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-284/24)
(C/2024/4107)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Nuctech Warsaw Co. Ltd sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Nuctech Netherlands BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, S. Ross, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission Decision of 16 April 2024 requiring an undertaking active in the threat detection systems sector to submit to inspections pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (in the context of Case FS.100068 – MARE), together with any subsequent act or request by the Commission and legal hold requests, including the information request concerning data stored in the People’s Republic of China; |
|
— |
order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the inspection decision is unlawful insofar as it purports to authorize the Commission to request, under the threat of penalties, information from a Nuctech entity located outside the EU. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the inspection decision is unlawful insofar as compliance with the decision would compel the undertaking to violate Chinese law, including criminal law. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the inspection decision infringes the applicants’ right of the inviolability of its business premises and privacy (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inspection decision is arbitrary because the Commission did not possess sufficient indicia for suspecting that the applicants received foreign subsidies leading to a distortion in the internal market. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the inspection decision infringed Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560, the Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU, and the right of defence of the applicants. |
(1) Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (OJ 2022 L 330, p. 1).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4107/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)