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-183/08 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05, Provincia di Imperia v Commission of the European Communities

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0183

62008CN0183

January 1, 2008
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

15.8.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/20

(Case C-183/08 P)

(2008/C 209/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Flynn, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Provincia di Imperia

Form of order sought

annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05;

declare that the action brought by the Provincia di Imperia in that case was inadmissible;

order the Provincia di Imperia to pay the Commission's costs in the present case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the Commission complains that the judgment under appeal failed to apply the conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment brought under Article 230 EC, in particular by considering that the applicant at first instance had an interest in bringing an action. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is only admissible in so far as the outcome of the action is likely to produce a benefit for the applicant. In the present case, the action brought by the applicant is manifestly inadmissible since a judgment annulling the contested act would, in itself, in no way produce a ‘benefit’ for that applicant. The granting of a subsidy is effectively a concession agreed to by the Commission and a party responding to a call for proposals consequently has no right to such a subsidy.

Alternatively, the Commission submits that, even if the applicant at first instance did have an interest in bringing an action on the day it brought its action, that interest would in any event have disappeared by the time the judgment under appeal was delivered, since the entire budget set aside for the call for proposals had been used up and the programming had come to an end.

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