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 62018TN0052

Case T-52/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima/Commission

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.3.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/39

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima/Commission

(Case T-52/18)

(2018/C 112/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (Eurajoki, Finland) (represented by: M. Powell, solicitor, Y. Utzschneider and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission Decision C(2017) 3777 final of 29 May 2017 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by EDF of New NP to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7764 — EDF/Areva reactor business) (OJ 2017 C 377, p. 5); and

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear fuel assemblies

—

As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the market for pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies, no separate market exists for European pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the acquisition by EDF of the Areva Group’s nuclear reactors business (the ‘Transaction’) on the narrower product market in question.

—

Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader pressurised water reactor fuel assemblies market would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear services

—

As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems, no separate product market exists for nuclear services for European pressurised water reactor type nuclear steam supply systems. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the Transaction on the narrower product market in question.

—

Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the geographic market definition of the downstream market for the generation and wholesale of electricity

This erroneous geographic market definition allegedly leads to additional errors of assessment of the effects of the Transaction.

Top