This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0057
Case T-57/24: Action brought on 5 February 2024 — Coöperatieve Rabobank v Commission
Case T-57/24: Action brought on 5 February 2024 — Coöperatieve Rabobank v Commission
Case T-57/24: Action brought on 5 February 2024 — Coöperatieve Rabobank v Commission
OJ C, C/2024/2172, 25.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2172/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 Series C |
|
C/2024/2172 |
25.3.2024 |
Action brought on 5 February 2024 — Coöperatieve Rabobank v Commission
(Case T-57/24)
(C/2024/2172)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and F. Brouwer, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Commission Decision C(2023) 7811 of 22 November 2023 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40512 — Euro-Denominated Bonds (EDB)) (‘the Decision’) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU; |
|
— |
in the alternative, partially annul Article 1 of the Decision pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, and reduce the fine imposed in Article 2 of the Decision pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; |
|
— |
in any event, reduce the amount of the fine imposed in Article 2 of the Decision pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
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 Commission erred in law, provided insufficient reasons and/or incorrectly assessed the evidence in finding that Rabobank engaged in conduct that has as its object the restriction and/or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. In particular,
|
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law, provided insufficient reasons and/or incorrectly assessed the evidence in concluding under Article 101 TFEU that (a) the conduct pursued a single aim or overall plan and (b) the alleged infringement was continuous during the relevant period. In particular,
|
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology to determine the fine violates Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, the Guidelines on Fines and the principle of proportionality. In particular,
|
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2172/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)