Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0337

    Case C-337/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission

    OJ C 326, 5.9.2016, p. 11–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.9.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/11


    Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission

    (Case C-337/16 P)

    (2016/C 326/21)

    Language of the case: Portuguese

    Parties

    Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

    Other party: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

    Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

    Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

    A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

    First argument

    Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

    Second argument

    Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

    B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

    First argument

    The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

    Second argument

    The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

    C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings


    Top