Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 17 May 2010 - Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission

(Case T-224/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL / Belgische Verbruikersunie Test-Aankoop VZW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Filpo and A. Fratini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Decisions No C(2009)9059 and No C(2009)8954, both of 12 November 2009, in Case COMP/M.5549 - EDF/SEGEBEL ; and

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as the Commission decided not to partially refer the concentration between Electricité de France S.A. and Segebel to the Belgian Competition Authority under Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004¹ (the EC Merger Regulation) and declared the concentration compatible with the common market subject to commitments, under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

In its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions lack adequate statements of reason, violate Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, and are affected by manifest errors of evaluation, in so far as the Commission does not take adequately into account the competitive relation between the merged entity and the incumbent operator GDF Suez.

In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission has infringed its procedural rights to participate in the procedure.

In its third plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not have the compelling and decisive elements to conclude that the transaction would not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that these defects also affect the decision not to refer the case to the Belgian Competition Authority, as the Commission did not have sufficient elements to establish whether or not it was the best placed authority to deal with the notified transaction.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, p. 1.