24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/55

—

(Case T-876/19)

(2020/C 61/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Broadcom Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Crocco, lawyers, J. Bourke, and J. Holmes, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Decision in whole or in part; and

—order the Commission to pay Broadcom’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of 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 (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom) (notified under document C(2019) 7406 final).

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

1.First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact regarding the Commission finding of a prima facie infringement resulting from (a) the Commission’s wrong interpretation of the terms of the agreements which Broadcom concluded with six customers (‘the Agreements’), (b) the Commission’s conclusion that it was not required to consider the Agreements’ likely effects on competition, (c) the Commission’s inadequate assessment of the prima facie capability of the alleged restrictions to restrict competition, and (d) the Commission’s unfounded conclusion that Broadcom is ‘at first sight’ dominant in one of the relevant markets at issue.

2.Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s finding that the interim measures were urgently needed to address a risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition on any of the relevant markets at issue resulting from (a) the Commission’s introduction of an unknown urgency concept which is only justified by the slow pace of its own proceedings contradicting the measures’ inherently exceptional character, (b) the absence of specific factors supporting an urgent need to take action as the Commission limits itself to referring to a series of generic claims, and (c) the Commission’s failure to show any likely damage to competition in any of the relevant markets.

3.Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s assessment of proportionality, resulting from the Commission’s failure to assess whether an expedited investigation would be more proportionate than limiting Broadcom’s freedom for a three-year period; and in its balancing of the interests involved.

—