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-444/05: Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62005TN0444

62005TN0444

December 21, 2005
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

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/40

(Case T-444/05)

(2006/C 48/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo (NLG) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: Salvatore Ravenna, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2005 refusing access to data and information concerning the extra costs arising as a result of PSO (public service obligations) and payments to offset those costs in respect of the services carried out by Caremar SpA on the Naples Beverello-Capri route;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-109/05 Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission.<a id="ntc1-C_2006048EN.01004001-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2006048EN.01004001-E0001"> (<span class="super">1</span>)</a>

It should, however, be stated that the contested decision in Case T-109/05 is based on Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the decision at issue in this case is based on Article 4(4) and (5) of that regulation. Accordingly, it was not Caremar that was consulted, as ‘third party author’ of the documents/data to which access was requested, but rather it was the Italian authorities, which did not issue the documents of the case and had no concerns relating to commercial interests, that were consulted.

Further, that consultation was carried out in an artificial manner, given that the Member States have exclusive competence together with a right of veto which is binding on the Commission.

* * *

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005, p. 43.

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