27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/65

(Case T-808/19)

(2020/C 27/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Silgan Closures GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, B. Meyring and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—The applicants seek to annul Commission Decision C(2019) 8501 final of 20 November 2019 (AT.40522 — Metal Packaging [ex Pandora]) on the obligation to provide information, and order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: Infringement of the rights of defence

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringed fundamental rights of defence since the questions asked are based predominantly on documents and information that the applicants had previously forwarded to the Bundeskartellamt (the German competition authority) as leniency applicants in proceedings pending before it. The Commission obtained those documents and information in the context of an impermissible exchange of information with the Bundeskartellamt or an unlawful inspection conducted on the basis thereof.

2.Second plea in law: Lack of competence of the Commission due to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission is not competent to carry out the investigation into the applicants or to adopt the contested decision. Given that the Bundeskartellamt carried out in-depth investigations and the national proceedings permit a final judgment, it is not apparent why it would have been inappropriate for the Bundeskartellamt to bring an end to the investigation in the present case or why the Commission is in a better position to carry out the contested investigative measure.

3.Third plea in law: Failure to state reasons

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning in that it does not contain any explanation as to why the Commission considered itself competent, in the light of the subsidiarity principle, to carry out investigations into the applicants.

4.Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the requirement of good administration and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union since the contested decision is disproportionate, infringes the legitimate expectations of the applicants and is incompatible with the requirement of impartiality and fairness.

5.Fifth plea in law: Misuse of powers

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the request for information is based on improper considerations because the investigation and, in particular, the contested decision involved cooperation between the Commission and the Bundeskartellamt in order to enable the Commission to circumvent the provisions provided for under German law on penalties imposed for infringements of Article 101 TFEU.