Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1267

12.2.2024

(Case T-1190/23)

(C/2024/1267)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Illumina, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: F. González Díaz, M. Siragusa, T. Spolidoro, F. Dewald, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul in whole or in part the Commission’s Decision C(2023) 6737 final of 12 October 2023 ordering measures to restore the situation prior to the concentration pursuant to Article 8(4)(a) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (Case M.10939 ILLUMINA / GRAIL (Restorative measures under Article 8(4)a));

—order the Commission to bear its costs and pay the applicant’s costs and expenses in connection with the present proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful as the conditions for adoption of a restorative order ex Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) are not met.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in law, fact, and assessment, violates the principle of proportionality and equal treatment, fails to state reasons, and disregards Illumina’s right to be heard when it unlawfully rejects non-divestment restorative measures or a divestment short of a full disposal.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Illumina’s fundamental right to property, commits errors of law, fact, and assessment, and violates the principle of proportionality with regard to Illumina’s post-disposal financial obligations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision’s obligations regarding contingent value rights err in law, fact, and assessment, violate the principle of proportionality, and fail to state reasons.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principle of proportionality and violates Illumina’s fundamental right to property with regard to the appointment and mandate of the divestiture trustee.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in law, fact, and assessment, and violates the principle of proportionality with regard to the divestment period.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in law, fact, and assessment, violates the principle of proportionality, fails to state reasons, and violates Illumina’s rights of defence with regard to the mandated transitional measures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1267/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

END OF DOCUMENT