This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/042/26
Case C-521/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission
Case C-521/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission
Case C-521/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission
OJ C 42, 24.2.2007, p. 16–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 24/02/2007; Date of publication
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
|
24.2.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 42/16 |
Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission
(Case C-521/06 P)
(2007/C 42/26)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Athinaiki Techniki AE (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)
Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon
Form of order sought
The Court is asked to:
|
— |
annul the contested order; |
|
— |
grant the forms of order sought at first instance; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant relies on a single plea in support of its appeal, based on the error allegedly committed by Court of First Instance in its legal characterisation of the letter deciding to take no further action on its complaint. First, the decision taken by the Commission not to take any further action clearly assumes a final character in the light of the file; secondly, it is unambiguously apparent from the context in which the Commission ruled that it had indeed implicitly taken a reasoned decision on the classification of the State aid which was the subject of the complaint. Consequently, the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding that the contested letter could not be subject of an action and in dismissing the action as inadmissible.
