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
—
(2015/C 046/34)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-35/11;
—rule that the appeal is admissible;
—return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;
—order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.
The appeal is based on the following two grounds:
First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.
Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.
—