Action brought on 17 July 2015 – KPN v Commission
(Case T-394/15)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: KPN BV (Den Haag, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and C. van der Hoeven, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul Commission decision C (2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement (Case M.7000 – Liberty Global/Ziggo), and
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 in that the Commission committed a manifest error in the assessment of the vertical effects of the concentration on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission failed to state its reasons for not assessing the possible vertical anti-competitive effects on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.
Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the Decision with respect to the role and influence of Mr Malone in other undertakings active on the same markets.
____________1 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).