- 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 T-76/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0076
62014TN0076
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
5.5.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 135/45
(Case T-76/14)
2014/C 135/57
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly and P. Harrison, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4);
—Order the Commission to pay the costs; and
—Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA, concerning practices by Thomson Reuters giving rise to barriers to switching between consolidated real-time datafeeds. By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Thomson Reuters certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is a competitor of Thomson Reuters.
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 of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons.
(1) 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