Action brought on 3 August 2021 – Portigon v Commission
(Case T-462/21)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Bischke, H.-J. Niemeyer and F. Grossmann)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 20 May 2021 (C(2021) 3489) (AT.40324 – European Government Bonds) adopted against Portigon AG;
order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and a failure to state reasons
The Commission failed clearly to present and state reasons as regards the conduct alleged on the part of the applicant and thus infringed the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU;
The Commission failed to send the applicant supplementary objections instead of a mere letter setting out facts.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of homogeneity of the legal order
By adopting the Commission decision, the Commission is going against its own 2011 decision on aid.
Third plea in law, alleging the Commission erred by failing to exercise discretion
The Commission erred by failing to take into consideration the applicant’s complaints and clearly failed to exercise its discretion in the adoption of the decision.
Fourth plea in law, alleging incorrect assumption of a single and continuous infringement
The Commission wrongly proceeds from the assumption of a single and continuous infringement which is alleged to have continued beyond the limitation period.
Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the sanctioned conduct on the basis of Article 101 TFEU and failure to state reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
The Commission incorrectly assesses all conduct as restriction of competition by object. The Commission has not proved the allegedly discernible effects on the market.
The Commission incorrectly attributes the conduct of a former employee to the applicant.
Sixth plea in law, alleging incorrect adoption of a decision making a finding pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 1
The decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, since the Commission has no legitimate interest in the adoption of its decision against the applicant.
____________
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).