Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0139

Case T-139/18: Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission

OJ C 142, 23.4.2018, p. 68–68 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/68


Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission

(Case T-139/18)

(2018/C 142/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Avio SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

regarding the substance, annul Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724;

by way of a measure of inquiry, order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 88, 89 and 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit the documents referred to in Section III of the present application;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724, as published in its non-confidential version on 11 December 2017.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to state adequate reasons

The Commission made a manifest error of assessment, failed to conduct a proper investigation and failed to state adequate reasons by not correctly analysing the risk of foreclosure in the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, in particular with regard to capacity, inducements and anti-competitive effects;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment

The Commission made a manifest error of assessment by not requiring undertakings to be given with respect to the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, particularly with regard to the risks to competition connected to the conflict of interests within Arianespace and the risk of exchange of sensitive information between Arianespace and ASL.


Top