7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/49

(Case T-589/22)

(2022/C 424/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silgan Holdings, Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States), Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH (Meissen, Germany), Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, Y.-K. Gürer and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.40522 — Metal Packaging (ex ‘Pandora’)).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following three pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the defendant due to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity

The defendant was not competent to conduct the proceeding against Silgan or to adopt the contested decision. In view of the in-depth investigations and the fact that the national proceedings permitted a final decision, the Bundeskartellamt (German competition authority) was in a position to bring an end to the investigation procedure in the present case. The defendant was not in a better position to conduct the proceeding.

2.Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers

The opening of the proceeding and the adoption of the decision by the defendant were guided by irrelevant considerations. They were carried out in order to circumvent the provisions provided for under German law on penalties imposed for infringements of Article 101 TFEU and to close a supposed loophole in German law on penalties.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The defendant infringed the principle of sound administration and thus infringed the applicants’ fundamental right under Article 41 of the Charter, since the contested decision is disproportionate, is contrary to the applicants’ legitimate expectations and runs counter to the principle that the administration is bound by its own acts.