—

uphold the first and second pleas, and declare Article 5(2), second sentence, and Article 5(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1127 (1) inapplicable with respect to the applicant and therefore annul Implementing Decision C(2023) 8176 final of the European Commission of 27 November 2023 determining the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook and Instagram pursuant to Article 43(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (2)

—

uphold the third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas, and annul Implementing Decision C(2023) 8176 final of the European Commission of 27 November 2023 determining the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook and Instagram pursuant to Article 43(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—

pursuant to Article 88 of the Rules of Procedure, order the measures of organisation requested in the third plea insofar as the Court considers this necessary; and

—

order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was wrong to calculate the maximum overall limit of the applicant’s fee by reference to the worldwide profits of Meta Platforms, Inc. on the basis of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of the Supervisory Fee Regulation, as that provision infringes Article 43(4) and (5) DSA and Article 290(1) TFEU and must be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the mechanism set out in Article 5(4) of the Supervisory Fee Regulation infringes Article 43(5)(b) DSA, Article 290(1) TFEU, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of equal treatment and therefore Article 5(4) SFR must be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard with respect to the calculation of the so-called ‘residual amounts’ and the AMAR methodology.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning with respect to the AMAR methodology.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the methodology to calculate AMARs in the contested decision is erroneous and infringes Articles 290(1) and 291(2) TFEU, Articles 33(3), 43(4), and 87 DSA, Article 4(2) SFR, and the principle of proportionality.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the calculation of the Applicant’s supervisory fee is erroneous and infringes Article 43(5)(b) and (c) DSA.