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-192/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0192

62007TN0192

June 4, 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

21.7.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/36

(Case T-192/07)

(2007/C 170/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise (Committee for the protection of wine-growing in the Charente) (Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276 of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative and thus declare void the measure contested in this action;

declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's decision by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 3 April 2007 the Commission decided not to allow the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged infringement of Article 81 EC by the Institut National des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) (National Institute of Designations of Origin) in France and the alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the major firms trading in cognac spirit (Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF). By this action, the applicant is seeking the annulment of that decision.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas.

The first plea relates to the alleged lack of competence of the Commission member who was the signatory to the contested measure, when he signed it ‘on behalf of the Commission’.

Second, the applicant submits that the decision did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not respond in the letter rejecting the complaint to all the information submitted by the applicant.

By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission did not give sufficiently serious consideration to the complaint.

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