25.11.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/87

(Case T-655/19)

(2019/C 399/106)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy), Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo) (represented by: D. Slater, Solicitor, G. Carnazza and D. Fosselard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the decision, in so far as it concerns them;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, and of Article 14 and Article 27(1) 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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18)

—The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission failed to remedy the procedural defect found by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia, Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai v Commission (joined Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717), following which the Commission adopted the contested decision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and infringement of Article 296 TFEU

—The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission considered that it was not empowered to assess the potential infringement of the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with consequent infringement of the law and misuse of powers

—The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission had effectively breached the principle that the duration of the procedure must be reasonable.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296, incorrect and contrary reasoning and a manifest error of assessment

—The applicants claim in that regard that the readoption of the contested decision is justified by the Commission on the ground of an alleged balancing of the interests of the parties involved in the procedure, which, however, appears to be inadequate and, moreover, vitiated by numerous factual errors