EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-263/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Symrise v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0263

62023TN0263

May 16, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/69

(Case T-263/23)

(2023/C 235/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: T. Kuhn, M. Rust, T.-M. Wienke, L. Bär and J. Jourdan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s decision C(2023) 1103 final of 10 February 2023 ordering an inspection at Symrise AG and all of its directly and indirectly controlled subsidiaries pursuant to article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (AT.40826 — Rose);

order the Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights of inviolability of private premises and privacy as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant submits that the Decision ordering the inspection at the applicant’s premises is (i) arbitrary because the Commission did not have sufficient indicia providing reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant’s involvement in any competition law infringement, and (ii) constitutes a disproportionate interference with its fundamental rights of inviolability of private premises and privacy as it contains no limitation in time.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(4) Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Commission’s obligation to state reasons as set forth in Article 296(2) TFEU. The applicant submits that the Decision infringes the Commission’s obligation to specify clearly and precisely the subject matter of the inspection, in violation of Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Commission’s duty to state reasons clearly in its decisions. More specifically, the wording of the Decision was such that it did not place the applicant in a position to understand the scope of the inspection, and thus exercise its rights of defence.

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).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia