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
—
(2009/C 233/21)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, avvocati)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;
—declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible and grounded, and therefore grant the forms of order sought at first instance;
—order the Commission to bear costs.
In the alternative:
—set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible;
—refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for the examination of the merits of the case;
—reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
The appellant submits that, in judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance:
—misapplied Article 230 EC by manifestly distorting of the content of the contested letters, the intention of their author and the evidence adduced before the CFI;
—incorrectly classified the Commission's position on the compatibility of the contested measures as preliminary and used a contradictory reasoning on the same issue;
—inappropriately made reference to Article 88(1) EC by considering that the Commission rejected a request to recommend appropriate measures;
—incorrectly applied Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20(2) of the Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in particular by ruling that the classification by the Commission of the contested measures as existing aid prevents the rejection of a complaint from being challenged.
—
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty OJ L 83, p. 1.
—