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-336/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2013 in Case T-671/11 IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0336

62013CN0336

June 19, 2013
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/25

(Case C-336/13 P)

2013/C 260/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, G. Wilms, G. Zavvos, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2013 in Case T-671/11;

dismiss the claim by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH against the Commission of 22 December 2011

order IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH to pay the costs at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant argues that the judgment under appeal is legally defective in numerous respects:

It fails to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which equalisation interest serves to compensate for inflation.

Contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it fails to make a distinction between equalisation interest and interest for delay, and sets both interest rates at two percentage points above the main refinancing interest rate of the European Central Bank.

It contains a calculation error, in that it capitalises the equalisation interest and calculates the interest for delay from 15 April 2011.

It misinterprets the contested decision and its own judgment in Case T-297/05 (1) and distorts the facts.

It contains an insufficient statement of reasons: It is not possible to determine the reasons for the amount of the interest calculation and the beginning of the calculation of interest for delay and the reasoning is inherently contradictory.

It infringes the principles of EU law on enrichment.

(1) [2011] ECR II-1859

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