NEWModern Legal Agent: describe your case, get an answer backed by case law and a draft filing.
Try it for free
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-389/12: Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0389

62012TN0389

September 5, 2012

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

(Case T-389/12)

(2012/C 331/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Électricité de France SA (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant an extension until 31 December 2014 of the Final Investment Decision deadline provided by one of the Commitments imposed in merger proceedings (Case No COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL);

—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging

—error of law and incorrect application of paragraphs 72 et seq. of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (1).

2.Second plea in law, alleging

—manifest error of assessment of the significant facts of the case.

3.Third plea in law, alleging

—violation of the principle of proportionality.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging

—misuse of powers and/or violation of the principle of sound administration.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging

—lack of motivation, since the Commission failed to provide any reason supporting its decision.

O J C 267 2008, p. 1

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