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-123/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte v ACER

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0123

62017TN0123

February 28, 2017
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

24.4.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/26

(Case T-123/17)

(2017/C 129/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 17 February 2017 given by the Board of Appeal of the defendant in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) concerning the rejection of the application for leave to intervene lodged by the applicant; and

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal of the defendant and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had no legitimate interest in the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (serious failure to state reasons).

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, since the Board of Appeal failed to notify the applicant of the position taken by the defendant in relation to the application made by the applicant for leave to intervene.

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