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-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0652

62011CN0652

December 19, 2011
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

18.2.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/19

(Case C-652/11 P)

2012/C 49/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court, on 5 October 2011, in case T-19/06 Mindo v. Commission and, consequently,

Refer the case back to the General Court and order the latter to assess it on the merits, as its judgment deprived Mindo of its right to a full judicial review at the first instance,

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant's request is based on the following pleas in law:

The General Court affirms that Mindo has no interest in pursuing the proceedings, because it could not take any advantage of the annulment of the Contested Judgment in itself, nor in relation to Alliance One International Inc.’s (“Alliance One”) claim for contribution, or to third parties’ follow-on actions for damages.

Firstly, the Appellant submits that the above mentioned findings should be annulled, as they violate the applicable laws, are based on distortion of facts and, in any case, are characterized by insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment should be annulled because it either deprives Mindo of its right of access to the court (and consequently of its rights to have its case fully reviewed) or, should the Contested Judgment be interpreted as requiring Mindo and Alliance One to have jointly lodged the application at first instance, it breaches Mindo's and Alliance One's right of defense.

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