14.9.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/16

—

(Case C-293/15 P)

(2015/C 302/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (represented by: O. W. Brouwer and A.A.J. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia, a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

Form of order sought

The Appellant respectfully requests the Court of Justice to:

1)set aside the contested judgment either in part or in full and pass final judgment on the appeal, annulling the contested decision in full or in part, or — in the alternative — refer the case back to the General Court;

and

2)order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice including the costs of the intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court dismissed the application for annulment in relation to the Commission of the European Union’s decision of 7 October 2008 on the Slovakian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services C(2008) 5912, addressed to the Slovak Republic.

(i)Set aside, in whole or in part, the aforementioned judgment of the General Court on the following grounds:

i.Errors of law, application of an erroneous standard of proof and misallocation of the burden of proof in finding that the Slovak Republic infringed Article 86(1) read in conjunction with Article 82EC;

a.Errors of law in finding that providing an exclusive right can in itself constitute an infringement of Article 86(1) EC read in conjunction with Article 82 EC;

b.Errors of law, applying an erroneous standard of proof and misallocating the burden of proof in finding that the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 EC by limiting output to end-users.

ii.Errors of law, insufficient standard of review and distortion of evidence in reviewing and accepting the relevant market definition submitted by the Commission of the European Union;

a.Error of law and insufficient standard of review in accepting that a relevant market of integrated hybrid mail services could be defined based on the (alleged) existence of demand and supply of a service alone;

b.Distortion of the evidence and application of insufficient standard of review in finding that prevailing demand on the market could be derived from the evidence submitted by the Commission.

(ii)Deliver final judgment on the appeal, annulling the contested decision in full or in part, or — in the alternative — refer the case back to the General Court;

(iii)Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice including the costs of the intervening parties.

—