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-623/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0623

62016CN0623

November 25, 2016
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 38/17

(Case C-623/16 P)

(2017/C 038/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, D. Grespan, F. Tomat, acting as agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;

declare the action at first instance inadmissible for the purpose of the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety;

order Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By a single plea in law, divided into three parts, the Commission claims that the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied, in that the General Court ruled that the applicant’s action at first instance was admissible on the basis of that provision. In particular, the General Court erred in law by finding that the contested act amounted to a regulatory act which was of direct concern to the applicant at first instance and did not entail implementing measures in respect of the applicant itself.

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