This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0289
Case T-289/24: Action brought on 3 June 2024 – Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission
Case T-289/24: Action brought on 3 June 2024 – Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission
Case T-289/24: Action brought on 3 June 2024 – Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission
OJ C, C/2024/4484, 22.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4484/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/2024/4484 |
22.7.2024 |
Action brought on 3 June 2024 – Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission
(Case T-289/24)
(C/2024/4484)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Brasserie Nationale (formerly Brasserie Funck Bricher and Brasserie Bofferding) (Bascharage, Luxembourg), Munhowen SA (Ehlerange, Luxembourg) represented by: J.-L. Schiltz and G. Parleani, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
declare the present direct action, brought against the decision of the European Commission of 14 March 2024 in the Case Munhowen-Brasserie Nationale v Boissons Heintz, No C (2024) 1788 final, admissible, |
— |
annul in its entirety the decision of the European Commission of 14 March 2024, in the Case Munhowen-Brasserie Nationale v Boissons Heintz, No C (2024) 1788 final, with all the legal consequences that entails. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the language regime vitiating the procedure ab initio. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the first time limit provided for in Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 as a result of failure to provide information to the undertakings concerned without delay. |
4. |
Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the procedural time limits laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 as a result of late communication of its decision – including to the undertakings concerned. |
5. |
Fifth plea, alleging failure to observe the principles of the rights of the defence, of equality of arms, of fairness of the procedure and of legitimate expectations. |
6. |
Sixth plea, alleging that there was no plausible analysis as regards trade between Member States being affected. |
7. |
Seventh plea, alleging that there was no plausible analysis as regards a threat of competition within the territory of Luxembourg being significantly affected. |
8. |
Eighth plea, alleging that the Commission was wrong to accept the referral on account of the absence of a merger control system at national level. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4484/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)