Orders nº T-612/17 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, February 10, 2020

• Resolution Date: February 10, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-612/17

(Confidentiality - Challenge by an intervener)

In Case T-612/17,

Google LLC, formerly Google Inc., established in Mountain View, California (United States of America),

Alphabet Inc., established in Mountain View, California,

represented by T. Graf, R. Snelders, C. Thomas and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, lawyers, R. O’Donoghue QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, and by M. Pickford QC,

applicants,

supported by

Computer & Communications Industry Association, established in Washington, DC (United States of America), represented by J. Killick and A. Komninos, lawyers,

intervener,

v

European Commission, represented by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Dawes, H. Leupold and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Fratini, lawyer,

by

Infederation Ltd, established in Crowthorne (United Kingdom), represented by A. Morfey, S. Gartagani, L. Hannah, A. D’heygere and K. Gwilliam, Solicitors, and by T. Vinje, lawyer,

by

EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by C. Zatschler and C. Simpson, acting as Agents,

by

Kelkoo, established in Paris (France), represented by J. Koponen and B. Meyring, lawyers,

by

Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by T. Höppner, professor, and by P. Westerhoff and J. Weber, lawyers,

by

Visual Meta GmbH, established in Berlin, represented by T. Höppner, professor, and by P. Westerhoff and J. Weber, lawyers,

by

Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger eV, established in Berlin, represented by T. Höppner, professor, and by P. Westerhoff and J. Weber, lawyers,

by

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by J. Möller, acting as Agent,

and by

Twenga, established in Paris, represented by L. Godfroid, S. Hautbourg and S. Pelsy, lawyers,

interveners,

APPLICATION under Articles 261 and 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 - Google search (Shopping)) and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINTH CHAMBER (EXTENDED COMPOSITION) OF THE GENERAL COURT

makes the following

Order

Procedure

1 By application lodged at the Court on 11 September 2017, Google LLC, formerly Google Inc., and Alphabet Inc. (together ‘Google’) brought an action for annulment and, in the alternative, for variation of Commission Decision of 27 June 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 - Google search (Shopping)), finding an abuse on their part of a dominant position on a number of national markets and accordingly imposing a financial penalty on them (‘the contested decision’).

2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 20 December 2017, the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zeitschriftenverleger eV (‘BDZV’) sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order requested by the Commission.

3 By orders of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court of 17 December 2018, BDZV and the other interveners mentioned in the introductory part of this order were granted leave to intervene.

4 On 15 March 2019, BDZV lodged a statement in intervention at the Court Registry.

5 By order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court of 11 April 2019, Google and Alphabet v Commission (T-612/17, not published, EU:T:2019:250), a ruling was made on the requests for confidentiality concerning elements of the application, the defence, the reply, the rejoinder and the annexes thereto, made by the main parties vis-à-vis the interveners and on the challenge by certain interveners in those requests. One of those interveners was authorised to lodge a supplementary statement in intervention. BDZV, for its part, had not challenged those confidentiality requests by the main parties within the period prescribed, namely by 15 January 2019 at the latest.

6 After the interveners lodged their statements in intervention, the main parties lodged observations on those statements in intervention at the Court Registry during the months of May, June and July 2019. (In particular, Google lodged observations on BDZV’s statement in intervention on 21 June 2019.)

7 By decision of the plenary meeting of the General Court of 10 July 2019, the case was referred to the Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court.

8 By letters of 9 and 23 August 2019 respectively, the Commission and Google requested that, because of their confidentiality, certain matters in Google’s observations on several statements in intervention should not be communicated to the interveners.

9 By order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court of 8 October 2019, a ruling was given on certain requests for confidentiality concerning elements of the observations on the statements in intervention, made by Google vis-à-vis the interveners, and on the challenge to those requests by the interveners, which did not include BDZV.

10 Upon hearing the Judge-Rapporteur, the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) called on the main parties, pursuant to Article 89(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to answer a number of questions, either in writing or at the hearing scheduled for 12 to 14 February 2020.

11 On 21 and 22 January 2020, the main parties lodged responses to the Court’s questions at the Court Registry.

12 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 22 January 2020, amended on 27 January 2020, Google...