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 62010CN0367

Case C-367/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by EMC Development AB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05: EMC Development AB v European Commission

OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/20

Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by EMC Development AB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05: EMC Development AB v European Commission

(Case C-367/10 P)

()

(2010/C 288/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: EMC Development AB (represented by: W.-N. Schelp, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(i)

annul the Commission's Decision dated 28.09.05;

(ii)

in the alternative to (i), set aside the Judgment under appeal in whole or in part and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the substance, in the light of the guidance which this Court may provide to it;

(iii)

in any event, Order the Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the General Court, in adopting the Commission's positions vis à vis the Guidelines, required the appellant to prove matters of fact and placed an unassailable burden upon the appellant. In so doing it has sought to require proof of the Standard's effects without considering the wider and more fundamental issues of its nature. The applicant considers that this constitutes an error of law and that the order of procedure of the tests as between the nature and the effects of the Standard have been reversed.

Top