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-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0463

62014TN0463

June 24, 2014
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

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/44

(Case T-463/14)

2014/C 303/52

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s implementing decision in Case C(2014) 2093 in so far as Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply to the award of contracts for postal services which are not mentioned in Article 1 of the implementing decision, exemption from which the applicant has requested under Article 30(6) of Directive 2004/17/EC;

in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment of the contested decision is, according to the Court, not admissible or possible, to annul the implementing decision in its entirety;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision, as regards the postal services not covered by Article 1 thereof, is unlawful under Article 263(2) TFEU because the Commission has infringed EU law by misapplying and misinterpreting Directive 2004/17/EC. The applicant claims, in essence, that the postal services which it provides are exposed to sufficient direct competition, so that the conditions for an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17 are met. The applicant also claims that the Commission misapplied the criteria and methods on market definition laid down by EU law and case-law.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed general fundamental procedural rights, in that by failing to adequately address the applicant’s claims and evidence, it infringed the applicant’s right to be heard.

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