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-555/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0555

62015TN0555

September 25, 2015
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

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/63

(Case T-555/15)

(2015/C 398/77)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 of 15 July 2015 on the 2014 amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee insofar as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive rate of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea(s) in law.

1.Misuse of discretion, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality

First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality.

2.Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment

Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment.

3.Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration and rights of the defence

Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons.

4.[Breach of] the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to effective legal remedies

Finally, the applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy.

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