This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025TN0686
Case T-686/25: Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission
Case T-686/25: Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission
Case T-686/25: Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission
OJ C, C/2025/6190, 24.11.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6190/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/6190 |
24.11.2025 |
Action brought on 6 October 2025 – Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych v Commission
(Case T-686/25)
(C/2025/6190)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Ogólnopolski Związek Pracodawców – Niepublicznych Operatorów Pocztowych (Kraków, Poland) (represented by: W. Knopkiewicz, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
annul European Commission Decision (EU) C(2024) 7997 of 15 November 2024 (published on 4 August 2025) on State Aid SA.105121 (2024/NN) consisting of compensation from the Republic of Poland to Poczta Polska S.A. for the net cost of the obligation to provide a Universal Postal Service in 2021-2025; |
|
— |
order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
|
1. |
The first plea alleges infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) inasmuch as no decision was adopted to initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU, despite the fact that doubts were raised as to the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market, that is to say, the assessment of the notified aid measure caused serious difficulty within the meaning of CJEU case-law, which consequently meant that the applicant, as an interested party, was deprived of the right, referred to in Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, to submit comments as to the proposed measure, and as a further consequence could result in an incorrect assessment as to the compatibility of that measure with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU. |
|
2. |
The second plea in law alleges infringement of the right to effective protection of interested parties, that is to say, it alleges infringement of Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 7(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, inasmuch as:
|
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6190/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)