This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0260
Case T-260/24: Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission
Case T-260/24: Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission
Case T-260/24: Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission
OJ C, C/2024/3924, 1.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3924/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/2024/3924 |
1.7.2024 |
Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission
(Case T-260/24)
(C/2024/3924)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States), Apple Distribution International Ltd (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: B. Meyring, A. Wachsmann, W. Leslie, L. Gam, C. Riis-Madsen, S. Frank, lawyers, and D. Beard, Barrister-at-Law)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission Decision C(2024) 1307 final of 4 March 2024 in Case AT.40437– Apple – App Store Practices (music streaming); or, in the alternative, |
|
— |
annul in part or in full Article 3 of the contested decision; and / or |
|
— |
annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants; and, in any event, |
|
— |
order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs. |
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 contested decision errs in its findings of market definition and dominance. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in finding the applicants’ anti-steering provisions abusive. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in imposing a fine and in calculating that fine. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a remedy which is disproportionate and for which it fails to state reasons. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the applicants’ rights of defence. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3924/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)