This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0274
Case T-274/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
Case T-274/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
Case T-274/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
IO C 234, 28.8.2010, p. 43–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.8.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 234/43 |
Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
(Case T-274/10)
()
2010/C 234/78
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Suez Environnement Company (Paris, France) and Lyonnaise des eaux France (Paris) (represented by: P. Zelenko and O. d'Ormesson, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the contested inspection decision and/or the inspection mandate of 6 April 2010; |
|
— |
Annul any action undertaken originating from the inspections carried out on the basis of that unlawful decision and that unlawful mandate; |
|
— |
Order, in particular, the return of all of the documents seized in the course of the inspections carried out, failing which, the Commission will have its future decision on the substance annulled by the Court, and |
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1984/4 of 23 March 2010 requiring Suez Environnement and all of the undertakings which it controls, including Lyonnaise des eaux France, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, taken in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU concerning the markets for the provision of water and sanitation services. (1)
In support of their actions, the applicants raise three pleas in law alleging:
|
— |
an infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms and in particular of the right to respect for the home since the applicants were not notified of any national judicial authorisation, thus depriving them of any fundamental guarantee such as access to a judge while the investigations were being carried out and the possibility of pursuing the ordinary avenues of legal redress against such an authorisation; |
|
— |
an infringement of the principle of proportionality since the validity of the inspection decision was unlimited in duration and had a very broad scope; |
|
— |
that the inspection mandate accompanying the inspection decision does not provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, in so far as the Commission's agents which previously examined the confidential information which the applicant Lyonnaise des eaux France sent to the Commission in the context of a notification of a concentration are designated in that mandate. |
(1) Case COMP/B-1/39.756.