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-179/25: Action brought on 13 March 2025 – Wireless Connect v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0179

62025TN0179

March 13, 2025
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/2414

28.4.2025

(Case T-179/25)

(C/2025/2414)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wireless Connect Ltd (Tipperary, Ireland) (represented by: S. Raes and F. Lancz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the Commission’s decision of 29 November 2024 SA. 55743 (2019/FC) ‘Ireland - Alleged infringement of State aid rules in relation to the National Broadband Plan Ireland’ (the Contested Decision);

Order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings, both its own legal costs and those of the applicant.

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 that the contested decision is not founded on one of the limited legal bases that the Commission is authorized to use when making a decision following a complaint, and the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU should have been initiated given the existence of serious difficulties.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly decided that nothing in the complaint demonstrates that the aid under the National Broadband Plan scheme has not been lawfully granted and implemented and that no alterations have been made to the aid.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state the reasons why the aid would have been lawfully granted and implemented.

(1) OJ C, C/2024/8499.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2414/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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