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-18/21: Action brought on 16 January 2021 — Be Smart v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0018

62021TN0018

January 16, 2021
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/35

(Case T-18/21)

(2021/C 79/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Be Smart Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Satta, G. Roberti, A. Romano and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12(1) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589, by failing to take a decision under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589, in particular to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU, in connection with the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2014 (SA.39639);

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is based on Article 265 TFEU and seeks to obtain a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a position on the complaint lodged by Be Smart S.r.l. on 15 October 2014, registered under number SA.39639, concerning two unlawful State aid measures in favour of the Consorzio Interuniversitario Cineca.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to act, which arises under the provisions regarding unlawful State aid, by failing to take action after receiving the invitation to act and not adopting a position on the complaint lodged on 15 October 2014. It also failed to observe the fundamental principle of good administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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