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-481/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0481

62007TN0481

January 1, 2007
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 64/43

(Case T-481/07)

(2008/C 64/72)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the Commission's decision;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 10 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 227, p. 4) concerning the Flemish rules on support for inter-modal transport via inland waterways (Aid measure N 682/2006 — Belgium). In the contested decision the Commission regards the support measure as compatible with the common market and decides not to raise any objection.

In support of their application, the applicants claim that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 362) and Articles 12 and 73 EC. They state that the subsidy is available on the transhipment of containers in Flemish inland ports when the containers enter or leave the European Union via a Flemish sea port but not when a sea port is in another Member State. They claim that this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality.

They also argue that the subsidy leads to a distortion of competition, as it seriously disadvantages all ports in north-west Europe which trade with the Flemish hinterland, and particularly the port of Rotterdam.

They also plead infringement of the obligation to investigate and state reasons. They maintain that the Commission has failed to investigate the consequences for competition and to explain why an economic investigation was not necessary.

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