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 62015CN0265

Case C-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

OJ C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/24

Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

(Case C-265/15 P)

(2015/C 294/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vestel Iberia, SL (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:

—

To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12;

—

To rule that the appeal is admissible;

—

To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

—

To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Vestel Iberia S.L. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in Case T-249/12, Vestel Iberia S.L. v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

—

The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

—

Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

—

The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.
Top