- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-15/25: Action brought on 10 January 2025 – Nvidia v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0015
62025TN0015
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/1124
24.2.2025
(Case T-15/25)
(C/2025/1124)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nvidia Corp. (Santa Clara, California, United States) (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Magraner Oliver and T. Verheyden, lawyers, and P. Stuart, Barrister-at-Law)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Commission’s decision of 31 October 2024, on the request for referral by Italy to the Commission pursuant to Article 22(1) of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) (1) and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, in Case M.11766, NVIDIA / Run:ai (the Decision);
—Order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay NVIDIA’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging unlawful interpretation of Article 22 EUMR and breaches of the Court’s judgment of 3 September 2024, Illumina v Commission, C-611/22 P. The Decision unlawfully accepted a referral request from the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza (AGCM), regarding a transaction that fell below the EU Merger Regulation and Member State merger control thresholds, based on the AGCM’s exercise of loosely defined, ex post, discretionary call-in powers. The Decision’s interpretation of Article 22 as allowing such a referral breaches the general principles of institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality, and equal treatment. It is also incompatible with Article 22’s legislative history, context, and intended object, and with the principle that exceptions and derogations to a provision ought to be interpreted narrowly.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is unlawful on the grounds that the referral request to which it relates, introduced by the AGCM pursuant to Article 22 EUMR, was made out of time.
—
(1) OJ L 24, 29.01.2004, p. 1.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1124/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—