Action brought on 1 March 2024 – WebGroup Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-139/24)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and A. Kontosakou, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
partially annul Commission decision C(2023) 8850 final of 20 December 2023 designating XVideos as a very large online platform in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (‘the contested decision’) in so far as it imposes on the applicant the obligation under Article 39(1) of Regulation 2022/2065 requiring providers of very large online platforms that present advertisements on their online interfaces to make publicly available in a specific section of their online interface, through a searchable and reliable tool that allows multicriteria queries and through application programming interfaces, a repository containing the information referred to in Article 39(2) thereof, for the entire period during which they present an advertisement and until one year after the advertisement was presented for the last time on their online interfaces; and
declare the partial inapplicability of Article 39 of Regulation 2022/2065 in so far as it imposes on the applicant the obligation under Article 39(1) thereof of requiring providers of very large online platforms that present advertisements on their online interfaces to make publicly available in a specific section of their online interface, through a searchable and reliable tool that allows multicriteria queries and through application programming interfaces, a repository containing the information referred to in Article 39(2) thereof, for the entire period during which they present an advertisement and until one year after the advertisement was presented for the last time on their online interfaces; and
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
Plea in law, alleging that the obligation imposed on the applicant by Article 39(1) of Regulation 2022/2065 to make publicly available a repository containing at least the information listed in Article (39)(2) thereof is unlawful in that it breaches the applicant’s and its advertisers’ right to confidentiality and the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct business [Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)] and its right to property (Article 17 of the Charter).
____________
1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).