Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62021TN0585

    Case T-585/21: Action brought on 9 September 2021 — Zásilkovna v Commission

    OJ C 481, 29.11.2021, p. 31–31 (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:
    09/09/2021
    Date lodged:
    09/09/2021
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    29.11.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 481/31

    Action brought on 9 September 2021 — Zásilkovna v Commission

    (Case T-585/21)

    (2021/C 481/44)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Zásilkovna s. r. o (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission’s decision in case SA.55208 (2020/C) — Czech Post USO compensation for the period 2018-2022, in the form of a letter dated (i) 9 July 2021 and (ii) 31 August 2021, partially dismissing the complaint of the applicant of 8 November 2019 as regards the cross-subsidisation by Česká pošta s.p. of its commercial activities;

    —

    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in concluding that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

    —

    In particular, it is argued that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation constitutes a stand-alone incompatible State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, taking place already at least in the 2013–2017 period (but very likely even before), which the Commission should thus have thoroughly assessed in separate administrative proceedings, and not as an ancillary issue within the proceedings in case SA.55208 (2020/C), limited to the 2018–2022 period. This is supported by the Commission’s previous case law. However, the Commission wrongly concluded that this cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid at all.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement, as its decision not to consider Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation as a stand-alone State aid is not duly reasoned.

    —

    In particular, the Commission failed adequately to state the reasons in the contested decision. Therefore, the Commission infringed the applicant’s essential procedural right, since all EU institutions are obliged to state the reasons for the measure in question to ensure its reviewability before the courts.
    Top