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 62019TN0545

Case T-545/19: Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

OJ C 319, 23.9.2019, p. 30–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
05/08/2019
Date lodged:
05/08/2019
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
Spanish
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment

23.9.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/30

Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/19)

(2019/C 319/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain), Global Special Steel Products, SA (Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Blanco Carol and B. Martos Stevenson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible;

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2019; and

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, which dates back to a request for inability to pay submitted in February 2000 in the context of proceedings in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel, is brought against the European Commission’s decision rejecting the request of 20 December 2018 to defer payment in the light of the applicants’ financial situation.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the contested decision was adopted without the applicants being given the opportunity to set out their point of view in that regard.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the rejection of the request submitted by the applicants.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law when assessing the applicants’ financial situation and their ability to pay the fine.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted the contested decision in breach of the general principle of collegiality, thereby vitiating that decision by a lack of competence.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Top