This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0093
Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
OJ C 142, 23.4.2018, p. 55–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.4.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 142/55 |
Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
(Case T-93/18)
(2018/C 142/72)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: International Skating Union (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and |
|
— |
order the Commission to bear the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU. |
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless. |
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement. |
|
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis. |