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 T-138/24: Action brought on 1 March 2024 – Aylo Freesites v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0138

62024TN0138

March 1, 2024
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

EN

C series

C/2024/3076

(Case T-138/24)

(C/2024/3076)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aylo Freesites LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Thomas, A. Bray, A. Ghalamkarizadeh and J. Beckedorf, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission decision C(2023) 8842 final of 20 December 2023 designating Pornhub as a very large online platform in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (‘the contested decision’);

declare inapplicable Article 39 of Regulation 2022/2065, to the extent that it requires the advertisement repository to be made publicly available; and

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law when applying Article 33(1) of Regulation 2022/2065 which determines the eligibility for designation as a very large online platform. Article 33(1) of Regulation 2022/2065, or the Commission’s application of that provision, fails to comply with the general principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

Second plea in law, alleging that, by rejecting the applicant’s monthly active recipients calculation, the Commission committed errors of fact and manifest errors of appreciation, failed to comply with its duty to state reasons, and infringed Article 33(4) of Regulation 2022/2065 and the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

Third plea in law, alleging that, by designating the applicant on the basis of two specific third-party figures and methodologies, the Commission infringed Article 33(4) of Regulation 2022/2065 and the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, as well as the applicant’s right to a fair hearing and to a statement of reasons.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 39 of Regulation 2022/2065 is illegal to the extent very large online platform providers must make their advertising repository publicly available. It unjustifiably interferes with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business and its right to property, and discriminates against the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3076/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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