22.2.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/20

—

(Case C-693/20 P)

(2021/C 62/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Intermarché Casino Achats (represented by: Y. Utzschneider, J. Jourdan, C. Mussi, S. Eder, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 delivered in Case T 254/17, in so far as it dismissed in part the action brought by Intermarché Casino Achats seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 taken on the basis of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and in so far as it ordered the applicant to pay the costs;

—Annul Article 1(a) of the decision of the Commission of 9 February 2017 in the above case AT.40466;

—Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003, based on the absence of appropriate remedies against the conduct of the inspections, which is not in accordance with the requirements of an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the documents submitted by the Commission to demonstrate the existence of solid evidence of infringement at the date of the inspection could be taken into account without complying with the formalities imposed by Regulation No 1/2003 and Regulation No 773/2004. This vitiated the General Court's conclusion that the Commission had solid evidence of the existence of the infringement referred to in Article 1(a) of the inspection decision. By refusing to annul Article 1(a) of the inspection decision, the General Court thus infringed the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not require the inspection decision to lay down a limit on the duration of inspections and by refusing to annul the decision on that ground.

—