In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council (1)

18. Notes that developing a common Community approach to passing on has merit and approves the admissibility of passing on as a defence, that evidence for such a defence must always be provided by the defendant, and that the courts have the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to reach just decisions in individual cases; suggests that guidelines be proposed concerning the extent to which the indirect purchaser and, in particular, the last indirect purchaser may rely on the rebuttable presumption that an illegal overcharge was passed down in its entirety to the level of tha ...[+++]t indirect purchaser;

18. Notes that developing a common Community approach to passing on has merit and approves the admissibility of passing on as a defence, that evidence for such a defence must always be provided by the defendant, and that the courts have the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to reach just decisions in individual cases; suggests that guidelines be proposed concerning the extent to which the indirect purchaser and, in particular, the last indirect purchaser may rely on the rebuttable presumption that an illegal overcharge was passed down in its entirety to the level of tha ...[+++]t indirect purchaser;

18. Notes that developing a common Community approach to passing on has merit and approves the admissibility of the defence of passing on as a defence, that evidence for that defence must always be provided by the defendant, and that the courts have the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to reach just decisions in individual cases; suggests that guidelines be proposed concerning the extent to which the indirect purchaser and in particular the last indirect purchaser may rely on the rebuttable presumption that the illegal overcharge was passed down in its entirety to its ...[+++]level;

The assessment of the validity of arguments put forward to support a refusal to offer assistance on the basis of points a and c of Article 14(2) cannot be solely the responsibility of the authority citing them to justify its own failure to cooperate.

The case-law cited in order to back up this assertion is the above-mentioned judgment in Case C-9/89 and in C-333/99 upholding the above-mentioned regulation on fisheries and reiterating the same line of argument as in the previous judgment.