- 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-99/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2013 in Case T-176/11: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) v Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0099
62014CN0099
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 112/25
—
(Case C-99/14 P)
2014/C 112/31
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (represented by: K. Desai, solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte, abogada)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Declare the appeal well~ founded and admissible;
—Set aside the Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 in case T-176/11 Carbunión v Council and, annul Articles 3(l)(a), (b), (f) and Article(3)(3) (the ‘Contested Provisions’) of Decision 2010/787 (the ‘Decision’) of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate closure of uncompetitive coal mines and give final judgment on the substance of the case; and
—Order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the Appellant both at first instance and in connection with the appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant relies on five grounds in support of its appeal.
—First, the Appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons adequately pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice when it considered that the Contested Provisions are not severable from the remainder of the Decision.
—Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law when considering that Article 7 of the Decision would serve no purpose without the Contested Provisions.
—Third, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Decision by not considering that the deadline contained therein defines a special temporal scope of the Decision.
—Fourth, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the conditions in Article 3(l)(f) of the Decision by considering it a compatibility condition and not a modality of granting the closure aid.
—Fifth, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the severability of the Contested Provisions would alter the spirit and the substance of the Decision.
*
Language of the case: English
(1) OJ L 336, p. 24
—