Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62008CN0006

Case C-6/08 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07: U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European Communities

OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07: U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-6/08 P)

(2008/C 64/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: US Steel Košice, s.r.o. (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor, E. Vermulst, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07 U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v. Commission

—

refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the substance;

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the appeal is based on errors of law committed by the Court of First Instance in relation to its application of the principles guiding the admissibility of actions and in the interpretation of Directive 2003/87 (1), as well as the distortion (denaturation) of the contested decision by the Court.

1.

The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that the contested decision rejected the plan of the Slovak Government to grant a specified amount of allowances to the appellant.

2.

The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that the contested decision inevitably led to and indeed explicitly required a reduction in the appellant's allowances.

3.

The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise the procedural similarity of the contested decision with a State aid or merger control decision;

—

the fundamental aspects of the procedure under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 are similar to State aid and merger control;

—

the contested decision in fact made a State aid appraisal of the appellant's allowances.

4.

The Court of First Instance wrongly identified a ‘discretion’ in the ‘implementation’ of the contested decision.

In short, the appellant maintains that it is directly concerned by the contested decision which rejected a formal plan to grant emissions allowances to the appellant, inevitably reduced the allowances that the appellant would be allocated, and indeed explicitly required those allowances to be reduced.

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 275, p. 32).

Top