This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0019
Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission
Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission
Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission
IO C 70, 6.3.2017, p. 26–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.3.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 70/26 |
Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission
(Case T-19/17)
(2017/C 070/36)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Fastweb S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Armati, A. Guarino and E. Cerchi, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Fastweb S.p.A. is seeking annulment of the decision of 1 September 2016 by which the European Commission authorised the merger in Case M.7758 Hutchinson 3 Italy/Wind/JV, pursuant to Article 8(2) of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [of 20 January 2004] on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), declaring the transaction whereby Hutchinson Europe Telecommunications (HET) and VimpelCom Luxembourg Holdings (VIP) acquire joint control of a newly-created joint venture (JV) by conferring on that JV their respective activities in the telecommunications sector in Italy to be compatible with the internal market, that compatibility being subject to conditions and obligations aimed at enabling the entry into the internal market of a new [mobile] network operator (MNO).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency, and infringement of Article 8 of the regulation mentioned above.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in so far as the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had determined the success of the entry of H3G, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hutchinson through which the latter operates.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the package of commitments.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by basing the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that the price is the only significant competitive factor within the relevant market, failed to conduct a proper inquiry.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the suitability of the commitments for resolving the concerns regarding coordinated effects on the retail market.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the commitments are unsuitable for responding to the competition concerns on the wholesale access market.
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 139/2004 and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
|