I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
(2015/C 302/83)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: KPN BV (Den Haag, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and C. van der Hoeven, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
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.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.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.
2.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.
3.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.
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (1)