This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0111
Case T-111/08: Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
Case T-111/08: Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
Case T-111/08: Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.5.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 116/26 |
Action brought on 1 March 2008 — MasterCard and others v Commission
(Case T-111/08)
(2008/C 116/47)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: MasterCard Inc. (Purchase, United States), Mastercard International Inc. (Purchase, United States) and MasterCard Europe SPRL (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers, and T. Sharpe, QC)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare the present application admissible; |
|
— |
annul the decision in its entirety; or, in the alternative, annul Articles 3,4,5 and 7 of the decision; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the applicants. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of this application, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 6474 final of 19 December 2007 in Cases COMP/34.579 — MasterCard, COMP/36.518 — EuroCommerce, COMP/38.580 — Commercial Cards (MasterCard) and, in the alternative, of the specific provisions of the decision concerning the imposed remedy, on the grounds that the decision is vitiated by errors of law, insufficient or lack of reasoning and manifest errors of fact. In addition, the application is based on the violation of the applicants' rights of defence during the Commission's investigation. Specifically, the applicants invoke the following grounds, variously based on Articles 229 EC, 230 EC and 253 EC, as well as the principles of EC law.
First, according to the applicants, the Commission misdirected itself in law and in fact, a) by failing to properly identify a restriction of competition in the sense of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA, b) as to the proper standard to be applied in assessing an objective necessity under the above-mentioned provisions.
Second, the applicants submit that the Commission misdirected itself in law and in fact in holding that the 'MasterCard Payment Organisation' constitutes an association of undertakings within the meaning of Articles 81(1) EC and 53(1) EEA, and that the cross-border interchange fee and related rules constitute a decision thereof.
Third, the applicants claim that the Commission is guilty of several infringements of essential procedural requirements and that the remedy and enforcement measures it imposed are disproportionate.
In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission demands an unlawfully high standard of proof in order to fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3) EC.