49First it should be recalled that in the context of their first plea in law, headed ‘Subject-matter of the information exchange agreement notified and content of the contested Decision’, the applicants stated that they did not notify the exchange of questionnaires 2-72 and 2-73 and submitted that ‘this constitutes an error of fact on the part of the Commission which affects the contested Decision’. They pointed out that, in Article 1 of the contested Decision, the Commission considers that the exchange of questionnaire 2-73 constitutes an infringement although it was not the subject of notification. The applicants did therefore put forward, in the application, the plea alleging an error of fact, consisting in particular of an incorrect definition of the content of the notified agreement. It should be added that the prohibition laid down in Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure concerns only new pleas in law and does not prevent the applicants submitting new arguments based on pleas already contained in the application (Case 19/58 Germany v High Authority [1960] ECR 225, p. 239).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.