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-74/11: Action brought on 1 February 2011 — Omnis Group Srl v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0074

62011TN0074

February 1, 2011
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

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

(Case T-74/11)

2011/C 95/16

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant(s): Omnis Group Srl (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Commission

Form of order sought

Grant this application for annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft;

Refer the case back to the defendant for a decision;

In the alternative, the General Court should decide the case and uphold the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft, which rejected the complaint made by the applicant concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct by Microsoft.

In support of its application, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

1.The first plea in law is based on the fact that the refusal by the defendant to investigate the abuses by Microsoft on the EAS/ERP (Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning) market is based on unfounded arguments.

2.The second plea in law is based on the fact that the defendant assessed the importance of the case wrongly, reaching the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that the issue raised by the applicant was of no interest to the EU.

3.The third plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant not to follow up the applicant’s complaint is unlawful and unfounded in that it infringes the rights of the applicant.

4.The fourth plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant was made without documentation to corroborate Microsoft’s statements being available, so that, as a result of that decision, the anti-competitive conduct complained of persists, and the development of the applicant is impeded.

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