This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0073
Case C-73/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
Case C-73/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
Case C-73/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
OJ C 130, 30.4.2011, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.4.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 130/12 |
Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
(Case C-73/11 P)
2011/C 130/22
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, Barrister, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
set aside the General Court’s decision of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 as it relates to the fourth and sixth pleas in the Appellant’s Application before the General Court; |
|
2. |
uphold those pleas as well-founded; |
|
3. |
refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the Appellant’s fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth pleas as they relate to the tax execution procedure; and |
|
4. |
order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following two pleas.
1. First plea: the General Court failed to assess the Commission’s application of the private creditor test against the correct legal standard.
2. Second plea: the General Court impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission as regards the application of the private creditor test; and/or assessed the existing evidence relevant to that test in a manner that was manifestly incorrect, thereby distorting the clear sense of the evidence.