- 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-696/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2015 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 –Czech Republic v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0696
62015CN0696
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
29.2.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 78/8
—
(Case C-696/15 P)
(2016/C 078/09)
Language of the case: Czech
Parties
Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
—set aside the judgment under appeal,
—annul Regulation No 885/2013 (1) and Regulation No 886/2013 (2) in their entirety, and
—order the European Commission to pay the costs.
In the alternative:
—set aside the judgment under appeal,
—annul Articles 3(1), 8 and 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 885/2013 and Articles 5(1), 9 and 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 886/2013, and
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
First ground of appeal: breach of the principle of legal certainty. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that the obligations under Regulation No 885/2013 and Regulation No 886/2013 do not apply to a Member State which has not yet decided to deploy in its territory the applications and services of intelligent transport systems, even though that conclusion does not follow from those regulations.
Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that, when the Commission adopts acts under delegated powers, it has a wide enough discretion for it not to have to remain within the bounds of the specific delegating provisions.
Third ground of appeal: procedural errors before the General Court. In the judgment under appeal the General Court badly distorted several arguments put forward by the Czech Republic, and there were some arguments of the Czech Republic which it did not address at all. Those procedural errors had a fundamental effect on the General Court’s assessment of the pleas in law.
*
Language of the case: Czech
(1) OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6.
—