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 62016TN0043

    Case T-43/16: Action brought on 29 January 2016 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

    IO C 106, 21.3.2016, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    21.3.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 106/44

    Action brought on 29 January 2016 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

    (Case T-43/16)

    (2016/C 106/52)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: J. Murach, lawyer and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 November 2015, adopted by the Director General for Competition in relation to the implementation of the Non-MNO Remedy in Case COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Merger decision’), which declared the Self-Commitment Letter in line with the Final Commitments and with EU law;

    —

    order the Commission to request that TEF DE issues a new Self-Commitment letter that is strictly limited to the obligation required from it, as set out in paragraph 78 of the Final Commitments approved by the merger decision;

    —

    order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant, in accordance with Article 87 of the Consolidated Version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the decision, the Commission engaged in manifest errors of law because the Treaties, the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’), the Merger decision and the Final Commitments do not leave any room for Clause 2.3 of the Self-Commitment letter as accepted by the decision.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting its decision, misused its powers by taking account considerations unrelated to competition, in breach of the Treaties, the EUMR and the Merger decision.
    Top