Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/930

17.2.2025

(Case T-1/25)

(C/2025/930)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: České dráhy, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kramář, J. Kindl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Decision C(2024)7355 final of 23 October 2024 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.40401-Second-hand Rolling Stock); and

—order the European Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts and failed to discharge its burden of proof. The applicant holds that there is no reliable evidence, which would be showing that the applicant and Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB) reached any agreement or arrangement with the objective of avoiding sales of used wagons from ÖBB to RegioJet (a competitor of the applicant) or preferring the applicant in such sales carried out by ÖBB. The applicant also alleges that the Commission omitted exonerating evidence in that regard.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the legal assessment in the contested decision is incorrect and that there are other associated errors. There is no previous practice, which would find a horizontal cartel agreement (moreover, in the form of a collective boycott) in a situation where only one of its purported parties operated (and was able to operate) at the allegedly cartelised market.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the proceedings carried out by the Commission were manifestly deficient and that there were manifold infringements upon the procedural rights of the applicant. In particular, the Commission failed to perform an independent and adequate investigation of the case (and, as a result, to discharge its burden of proof). Instead, it relied almost exclusively on the leniency application. The Commission also made additional errors, which hampered the rights of the applicant to be properly heard and to defend itself on fair terms in the proceedings.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made numerous errors when it imposed a fine on the applicant. In particular, the Commission failed to consider that the novel legal concepts adduced in its decision were unforeseeable, which, even if correct (quod non), would call for not imposing a fine (or, to the least, for imposing it in a symbolic amount only). Therefore, at minimum, the Court should reduce the fine to zero or a symbolic level only, applying its unlimited jurisdiction over fines.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/930/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—