- 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 T-412/14: Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0412
62014TN0412
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 292/47
(Case T-412/14)
2014/C 292/58
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—uphold this action in its entirety;·
—declare to be null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4628/28/03/2014] in relation to the sale of certain assets of the applicant (No. SA.37954 (2013/N) and,
—order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action the applicant relies on three pleas in law:
1.The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant maintains that due to the failure first to hear the applicant it is evident that the adoption of the contested decision was vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement for its adoption.
2.The second plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (ΕC) No 659/99. The applicant maintains that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that there was economic continuity between the applicant and the purchaser of its assets in the context of the ‘privatisation programme’.
3.The third plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU. The applicant maintains that the statement of reasons in the contested decision is insufficient as regards the lack of economic continuity, and particularly as regards (a) the scope of the assets which were sold, (b) the non-transfer of employment contracts and (c) the economic logic of the sale.
Council Regulation (ΕC) No 659/1999 of 22 March1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).