Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3067

10.6.2025

(Case T-240/25)

(C/2025/3067)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Független Benzinkutak Szövetsége Egyesület (FBSZ Egyesület) (Dunaújváros, Hungary) (represented by: B. Bassola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—Annul European Commission Decision C(2025) 1000 final of 12 February 2025 (Case AT.40923), by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. (1)

—Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

—In the first part of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Commission infringed Article 102 TFEU, in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU. with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and with Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (2) since, according to the applicant, it made a manifest error of assessment in determining the interest of the European Union in continuing to examine the complaint, because it failed to investigate the harm to competition caused locally by the practice complained of, with the result that it underestimated that harm. It also infringed the applicant’s right to have its complaint heard on the basis of its actual content, because it arbitrarily interpreted what was stated in the complaint.

—In the second part of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU, interpreted in the light of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, because it failed to state reasons for its decision as regards why it found that the closure of 53 service stations was insufficient for the European Union to have a sufficient interest in examining the damage to competition arising from the behaviour complained of on the part of Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (MOL).

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties

—The European Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by failing to state the reasons why it found the question of whether the national competition authority was capable of effectively protecting the applicant’s rights to be irrelevant from the perspective of assessing the interest of the European Union.

3.Third plea in law, also alleging infringement of the Treaties

—The Commission infringed Article 102 TFEU, interpreted in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and of Protocol No 27, on the internal market and competition, annexed to the Treaties, by failing correctly to assess the characteristic feature of the behaviour complained of on the part of MOL, namely that it also hindered the integration of the internal market of the European Union.

—

Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3067/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—