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-126/19: Action brought on 21 February 2019. — Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0126

62019TN0126

February 21, 2019
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

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/54

(Case T-126/19)

(2019/C 148/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases, on which the contested decision is founded, and as a result find that the contested decision is flawed in that regard;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: the applicant raises a plea under Article 277 TFEU concerning the invalidity of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the contested decision being founded on that article, to the extent to which it bases the system of apportionment of quotas on reference values resulting from the historically-declared data in relation to F-gases placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, since that constitutes a discriminatory and arbitrary division of undertakings according to their historical activity on the market for gases, and it submits that the contested decision is therefore flawed in that regard.

2.Second plea in law: the applicant alleges a breach of essential procedural requirements and the infringement of the Treaty inasmuch as inadequate reasons were given for the introduction of the mechanism for dividing undertakings active on the F-gases market on the basis of the value of the F-gases historically placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.

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