Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0884

    Case T-884/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission

    OJ C 38, 6.2.2017, p. 53–54 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    15/12/2016
    Date lodged:
    15/12/2016
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    German
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    6.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 38/53

    Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission

    (Case T-884/16)

    (2017/C 038/69)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Multiconnect GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 11 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;

    —

    in the alternative, annul Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation

    The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in its interpretation and application of Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018 together with commitments, inasmuch as it limited, in the case, the so-called ‘non-MNO remedy’ to which Telefónica had committed itself to grant third parties access to 4G services in the wholesale mobile communications market, to third parties with a service provider business model and did not allow Telefónica to grant third parties access to 4G services within the framework of an MVNO business model in accordance with the ‘non-MNO remedy’.

    2.

    Second plea, put forward in the alternative: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation, as well as manifest errors of assessment and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as Decision C(2014) 4443 final wrongly concluded that the commitments made by Telefónica could remove any competition concerns.
    Top