- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-682/20 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2020 by Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-255/17 Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0682
62020CN0682
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 44/37
—
(Case C-682/20 P)
(2021/C 44/42)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellants: Les Mousquetaires S.A.S., ITM Entreprises S.A.S (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/17;
—Grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1057 of 9 February 2017 and Decision C(2017) 1361 of 21 February 2017, ordering Intermarché and Les Mousquetaires and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;
—Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the entire proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The first ground of appeal alleges errors of law and a failure to state reasons in the context of the analysis of the effectiveness of the legal remedies concerning the conduct of inspections.
The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, Article 296 of the Treaty and Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court disregarded the obligation to state reasons and to limit inspection decisions.
The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law and infringement of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court classified a procedural phase ‘before the adoption of any measure alleging that an infringement has been committed’ as not subject to the regulation.
The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR and Article 19 of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court classified as reasonable grounds elements affected by formal and substantial irregularities.
The fifth ground of appeal alleges a failure to state reasons resulting from a failure to check the probative value of those grounds and an error as to the classification as ground.
—