This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0399
Case T-399/19: Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
Case T-399/19: Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
Case T-399/19: Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
OJ C 288, 26.8.2019, p. 57–58
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
26.8.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 288/57 |
Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
(Case T-399/19)
(2019/C 288/70)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Buczkowska and M. Trepka, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission decision of 17 April 2019 concerning proceedings under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices, ending proceedings AT.40497 in accordance with Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (1) and dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant on 9 March 2017 (‘PGNiG’s complaint’).
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision which constituted an abuse of power, inasmuch as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision which manifestly infringes Article 102 TFEU on account of an incorrect interpretation and the assessment that an undertaking may effectively rely on ‘state coercion’ stemming from the domestic law of a third State, which is not a Member of the European Union or the EEA, exonerating that undertaking from its liability in respect of an anti-competitive practice. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes the applicant’s right to be informed and to be heard provided for in Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004, in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights inasmuch as it did not forward to the applicant the information concerning the fact that the Commission, as a basis for the rejection of PGNiG’s complaint concerning the issues in relation to the Yamal Gas Pipeline, also took into consideration the domestic law of the Russian Federation, and inasmuch as it failed to forward to the applicant all the essential documents in relation to that issue, which constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 and Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as it failed to make a careful examination of all the factual and legal circumstances put forward in PGNiG’s complaint and inasmuch as it put forward reasoning which does not enable the General Court to effectively review the Commission’s implementation of its discretionary powers, which constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU inasmuch as the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment consisting
|