Appeal brought on 23 December 2025 by Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU and Red Bull Nederland BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), delivered on 15 October 2025 in Case T-306/23, Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU, Red Bull Nederland BV v European Commission

(Case C-865/25 P)

(C/2026/785)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU, Red Bull Nederland BV (represented by: H. Wollmann, F. Urlesberger, A. Visontai-Knor, J. Schindler, Rechtsnwälte, A. O’Leary, Solicitor, M. Cuypers, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants (together, ‘Red Bull’) rely on six grounds in support of their appeal.

First, Red Bull criticises the General Court for failing to observe the principle of equality of arms and for unlawfully restricting Red Bull’s rights of defence by making access to the evidence subject to a twofold restriction. That twofold restriction on access constitutes a procedural defect, conflicting with the wording of Article 103 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Furthermore, the General Court largely ignored Red Bull’s submissions on that matter and thus failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons for the judgment under appeal.

Second, Red Bull argues that the abovementioned errors of law and of procedure had an impact on the assessment of the evidence by the General Court. In addition, the General Court failed to recognise the fact that evidence may not be sufficiently reliable if it originates from a single competitor.

Third, Red Bull contests the Court’s impermissible rejection of its argument that the European Commission should have obtained prior judicial authorisation for the decision at issue. The General Court failed to recognise that Red Bull had based its argument on a legitimate request that that Court acknowledge a new formal condition for the lawfulness of a legal act, such as to lead to the conclusion that there was a procedural error in the Commission’s decision-making process and not merely an error of law in the implementation of the decision at issue.

Fourth, the General Court committed a further error of law in its judgment, by incorrectly finding that the decision at issue was sufficiently precise and clear.

Fifth, Red Bull claims that the rejection of its argument that the decision at issue was disproportionate as regards the continued inspection was impermissible. The General Court failed to recognise that, according to settled case-law, the implementation of a decision is relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the decision itself.

Sixth and last, Red Bull complains that the General Court failed to recognise that every inspection decision must ensure the right of access to a lawyer and that that is a formal condition for the lawfulness of the decision at issue. The General Court also failed to recognise that the refusal of access to a lawyer and the failure to observe legal professional privilege have a direct legal effect and therefore amount to grounds of challenge that are independent of the decision at issue.