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-43/16: Action brought on 29 January 2016 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0043

62016TN0043

January 29, 2016
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

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/44

(Case T-43/16)

(2016/C 106/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: J. Murach, lawyer and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 November 2015, adopted by the Director General for Competition in relation to the implementation of the Non-MNO Remedy in Case COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Merger decision’), which declared the Self-Commitment Letter in line with the Final Commitments and with EU law;

order the Commission to request that TEF DE issues a new Self-Commitment letter that is strictly limited to the obligation required from it, as set out in paragraph 78 of the Final Commitments approved by the merger decision;

order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant, in accordance with Article 87 of the Consolidated Version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

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 that, in adopting the decision, the Commission engaged in manifest errors of law because the Treaties, the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’), the Merger decision and the Final Commitments do not leave any room for Clause 2.3 of the Self-Commitment letter as accepted by the decision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting its decision, misused its powers by taking account considerations unrelated to competition, in breach of the Treaties, the EUMR and the Merger decision.

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