| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/10 |
Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-612/17, Google and Alphabet v Commission
(Case C-48/22 P)
(2022/C 191/14)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Google LLC, Alphabet, Inc. (represented by: T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt, R. Snelders, advocaat, C. Thomas, avocat, A. Bray, avocate, M. Pickford QC, and by D. Gregory and H. Mostyn, Barristers)
Other parties to the proceedings: Computer & Communications Industry Association, European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, EFTA Surveillance Authority, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), Infederation Ltd, Kelkoo, Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, Visual Meta GmbH, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, formerly Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger eV, Twenga
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| — | annul the Decision (1) or in the alternative remand the case to the General Court; |
| — | order the Commission to bear the appellants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.
First plea in law: The General Court erred in upholding the Decision despite the Decision’s failure to meet the legal test for a duty to supply access to comparison shopping services.
| — | The General Court impermissibly deviated from the Decision by holding that the duty to supply conditions were fulfilled. |
| — | The General Court erred in finding that the duty to supply conditions were not applicable. |
Second plea in law: The General Court erred in upholding the Decision despite the Decision’s failure to identify conduct that deviated from competition on the merits.
| — | The General Court wrongly held that circumstances relevant to the likely effects of Google’s conduct were capable of determining whether Google competed on the merits. |
| — | The General Court impermissibly rewrote the Decision by advancing additional reasons why Google’s conduct supposedly deviated from competition on the merits. |
| — | The General Court’s additional reasons as to why Google did not compete on the merits are legally invalid. |
Third plea in law: The General Court erred in its review of the causal link between the alleged abuse and likely effects.
| — | The General Court erred in holding that the burden to conduct a counterfactual analysis was on Google, rather than the Commission. |
| — | The General Court erred in holding that a counterfactual for an abuse that consists of the combination of two lawful practices requires removing both practices. |
| — | The General Court’s approach vitiates its assessment of both effects and objective justification. |
Fourth plea in law: The General Court erred by holding that the Commission did not have to examine whether the conduct was capable of foreclosing as-efficient competitors.
(1) Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)).