Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/67

(Case T-539/19)

(2019/C 328/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury, K. Mebarek and B. Chemama, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—order the joinder of the present case and Case T-255/17;

—uphold the plea of illegality in respect of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that it does not provide for an effective remedy with regard to the conditions for carrying out inspection decisions in accordance with Articles 6(1), 8 and 13 of the [European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Articles 7 and 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union];

—annul decision AT.40466 — Tute 1 of 13 May 2019 ordering Les Mousquetaires S.A.S. and all its subsidiaries to submit to an inspection under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002;

—annul the refusals to grant the protection guaranteed by EU law with which the applicants were met;

—annul the Commission’s decision served on the applicants on 18 June 2019 depriving them, without due cause, of the right to an effective remedy with regard to the information examined as part of an ongoing inspection;

—order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of fundamental rights, of the right to inviolability of the home and of the right to effective judicial protection as a result of the lack of effective judicial remedy as regards the conditions for carrying out inspection decisions.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20(4) of Council Regulation 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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and of fundamental rights on the ground that the inspection decision does not contain an adequate statement of reasons and, as a result, that decision deprived the applicants of fundamental guarantees required in that context.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of fundamental rights on the ground that the Commission had no evidence which justified the contested decision.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, an infringement of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and an infringement of fundamental rights on the ground that the inspection decision is not the result of an impartial examination but instead has every appearance of an act adopted for purposes other than those asserted.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20(3) and (4) and Article 21 of Regulation No 1/2003 and of fundamental rights on the ground that the applicants were deprived of other fundamental guarantees which are in turn required and without which the inspection decision is invalid.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the manner in which the Commission decided on the appropriateness, duration and extent of the inspection and ongoing inspection.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of fundamental rights as a result of the decision to refuse to provide adequate protection for certain documents in respect of which the applicants had sought the protection of EU law.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of fundamental rights by virtue of the denial, without due cause, of the right to apply to the EU Courts to suspend inspection of the information placed under seal pending resolution of the present action.