Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1121

(Case T-682/24)

(C/2025/1121)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria), Red Bull France (Paris, France), Red Bull Nederland BV (Soesterberg, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Wollman, F. Urlesberger, A. Visontai-Knor, J. Schindler and F. Dethmers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s decision on costs dated 23.10.2024;

—require the Commission to compensate in full the costs claimed by the applicants; and

—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 unlawful refusal to reimburse the additional costs, which arose solely on account of a disproportionately lengthy and far-reaching continued inspection. The refusal to reimburse the additional costs, which the applicants incurred on account of the disproportionate continuation of the inspection, is unlawful. The disproportionate seizure of data by the defendant was the cause of the excessive duration of the continued inspection and the excessively high costs which arose as a consequence. The refusal to compensate the full extent of the costs claimed is therefore unlawful.

2.Second plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons for the decision on costs and lack of clarity regarding the alternative scenarios. The defendant’s decision on costs lacks a sufficient statement of reasons in view of the refusal to reimburse the costs claimed. It is not possible for the applicants to understand the defendant’s decision. Moreover, the Court is unable thereby to exercise its power to review.

3.Third plea in law, alleging incorrect legal assessment on the basis of misinterpretation of the Nexans case-law. The defendant incorrectly assumed that the Court in the judgment of 16 July 2020, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission only contemplated cash expenses as costs recoverable resulting from an inspection continued in Brussels.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the material rights of the defence. The decision on costs undermines the applicant’s rights of the defence. The defendant thereby denied the defendants the right independently to choose the manner of defence which was appropriate for it and imposed disproportionate requirements on the application for costs.

* C-606/18 P, EU:C:2020:571.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1121/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—