Action brought on 27 November 2023 – Lagardère v European Commission

(Case T-1119/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lagardère SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Théophile, G. Aubron and C. Bocket, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2023) 6429 of 19 September 2023, as amended by Commission Decision C(2023) 7464 of 27 October 2023;

order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes a misuse of the Commission’s powers under Article 11(3) of Regulation 139/2004, in that that decision unlawfully assigns to Lagardère SA the responsibility for conducting exploratory ‘searches’ without satisfying itself that the latter had the legal and technical ability to proceed with such searches.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 269 TFEU, in that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and, therefore, does not enable either the applicant to understand the reasons for the measure, or the Courts of the European Union to review the legality of the contested decision. In particular, the reasoning of the contested decision does not enable understanding of (i) the choice of legal instrument or (ii) the scale of the information requested.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to respect for private life and the confidentiality of correspondence, in that the contested decision requires the applicant to collect the personal communication tools of its employees, together with their personal documents stored on their work devices.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principle of freedom of the press, in that the contested decision makes no provision for any protection of documents likely to contain journalistic sources, and imposes on Lagardère SA and on the journalists concerned a burden that is disproportionate to the needs of the Commission’s investigation.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of the right to legal certainty, in that the contested decision cannot be regarded as sufficiently ‘clear and precise’ within the meaning of the case-law and necessarily puts the applicant in breach of its legal and contractual obligations.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of the protection against arbitrary intervention by public authorities within the sphere of private activities, in that the contested decision goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the Commission’s investigation as regards (i) the legal instrument chosen; (ii) the scale of the information requested and (iii) the deadline imposed for the response.

____________