Action brought on 3 December 2008 - Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission

(Case T-533/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Telekomunikacja Polska SA (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by H. Romańczuk, M. Modzelewska de Raad and S. Hautbourg, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Commission Decision C(2008) 4997 of 4 September 2008 requiring the undertaking Telekomunikacja Polska SA and all undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003; ¹

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4997 of 4 September 2008 requiring the undertaking Telekomunikacja Polska SA and all undertakings directly or indirectly, wholly or partly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, in connection with a procedure concerning the alleged application of practices incompatible with Article 82 EC in the electronic communications sector.

The applicant raises the following pleas in law in support of its action:

First, the applicant claims that the contested decision was taken in breach of the obligation to state proper reasons laid down in Article 253 EC and Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003. In this connection the applicant complains that the Commission did not demonstrate in a satisfactory manner that it was in possession of information and evidence on the basis of which it could reasonably be asserted that the applicant had committed the infringement it was accused of. Moreover, according to the applicant, the Commission's decision did not describe with sufficient precision the facts which the Commission intended to examine in the course of the inspection. The applicant further submits that the Commission breached the obligations of describing in the contested decision the essential features of the infringement the applicant was accused of.

Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringed the principle of proportionality, in that the Commission did not, according to the applicant, choose the method of carrying out the procedure which would have been the least oppressive for the applicant.

Third, the applicant claims that the Commission did not ensure the applicant's rights of defence, particularly in connection with the infringements alleged by the applicant in relation to the contested decision in the first plea in law. In connection with the above, the applicant submits that it was not able to determine clearly what practices would be the subject of the Commission inspection and consequently to make a proper assessment of whether and to what extent the inspection was justified or of its obligation to cooperate with the Commission in the course of the inspection.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).