- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-83/09 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany and Land Sachsen-Anhalt
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0083
62009CN0083
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 102/15
—
(Case C-83/09 P)
2009/C 102/25
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany and Land Sachsen-Anhalt
Form of order sought
—Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declares admissible the action for annulment brought by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by Germany in favour of Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the construction of a production plant for pulp;
—dismiss as inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the contested act;
—order Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the Commission’s view, the establishment of a right of action against decisions on aid in favour of parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC infringes the requirements laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC as to the admissibility of actions. Parties concerned who are not parties to the aid procedure do not have their own party rights, enforceable by bringing proceedings. Instead, individual concern is to be determined on the basis of the Court’s Plaumann formula. Individual concern can, therefore, arise only by virtue of the economic impact of the aid on the applicant.
In addition, the judgment under appeal includes an inadmissible reinterpretation of the forms of order sought. In the Commission’s opinion, the Court examined arguments put forward by the applicant which were not put forward in regard to the protection of the applicant’s alleged procedural rights, even though the action was admissible only for the purposes of protecting the alleged procedural rights.
The judgment under appeal would ultimately lead to the introduction of a popular action against State aid law decisions which is extraneous to Community law.
—