24.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/46

Action brought on 29 August 2016 — České dráhy v Commission

(Case T-621/16)

(2016/C 392/60)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins ordering an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) 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;

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of materials obtained during a previous inspection at the business premises of České dráhy which was carried out on the basis of an illegal decision. The European Commission could not use the materials thus obtained, not even for the adoption of the decision contested by the present action.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the materials on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted were obtained by the European Commission during a previous inspection, outside the framework of the subject of the inspection, and hence illegally.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the associated inspection by the European Commission constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s private sphere. The contested decision was adopted by the European Commission without legally available materials, the Commission defined the subject of the inspection unacceptably broadly, and it proceeded beyond the bounds of its investigative powers.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately delimit the subject and purpose of the inspection, inter alia in that it defines unacceptably broadly the period of time to which the inspection was to relate, and does not state proper reasons.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that because of the contested decision and the associated inspection there was an unacceptable interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).