18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/64

(Case T-680/20)

(2021/C 19/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Inc. (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völcker, T. Caspary and R. Benditz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision of 31 August 2020 in Case No. M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris rejecting Novelis’ request for a one-month extension of the Closing Period pursuant to Clause 49 of the Novelis/Aleris Commitments;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted by the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Competition rather than the College of Commissioners in violation of the principle of collegiate responsibility.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s right to be heard.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons allowing the applicant to exercise its rights of defence in an effective manner.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment and ignores that the applicant has good cause to apply for an extension. The applicant further alleges that in light of its legal consequences and the availability of several less onerous means, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of proportionality.