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-15/14 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0015

62014CN0015

January 15, 2014
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 61/6

(Case C-15/14 P)

2014/C 61/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Talabér-Ritz, agents)

Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission; and

reject the application to annul Commission Decision C(2010) 3553 final of 9 June 2010 in Case C-1/09 (ex NN-69/2008) on the State aid implemented by Hungary in favour of MOL Nyrt (1);

order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;

alternatively,

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside because several aspects of that judgment misinterpret or misapply the concept of selectivity.

First, the judgment misapplies the case-law on selectivity in relation to measures for which the national authorities have discretion on the treatment they accord to undertakings.

Second, the General Court incorrectly states the law in considering that the presence of objective criteria necessarily excludes the presence of selectivity.

Third, the judgment erroneously links the presence of selectivity to the intention of the Member State to shield one or more operators from a new regime of fees and thereby overlooked the requirement that the presence of State aid rests on the effects of the measure under examination.

Fourth, the considerations set out in the judgment regarding the ‘subsequent modification of the conditions external to [an agreement preserving a particular level of fees]’ could not be relevant to the case in hand since the subsequent modification of the conditions external to the agreement examined by the Commission was a change in a legislative regime.

*

OJ L 34, p. 55.

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