EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0265

62015CN0265

June 2, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

7.9.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/24

(Case C-265/15 P)

(2015/C 294/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vestel Iberia, SL (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:

To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12;

To rule that the appeal is admissible;

To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Vestel Iberia S.L. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in Case T-249/12, Vestel Iberia S.L. v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia