Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62019TN0368

    Case T-368/19: Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

    OJ C 270, 12.8.2019, p. 37–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    12.8.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 270/37

    Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

    (Case T-368/19)

    (2019/C 270/39)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare that the defendant has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 108 TFEU in so far as it failed to close the formal investigation procedure in Case SA.34402 (2015/C ex 2012/NN) by means of a decision within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation 2015/1589; (1)

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

    1.

    Infringement of Article 108 TFEU through a failure to close the formal investigation procedure

    —

    In its first plea in law the applicant argues that the procedure length of over seven years must be held to be unreasonable. In this regard the applicant argues that, in the light of the extensive information available to the defendant and the small number of open questions, a decision should already have been taken. Further, a decision must be taken shortly due to the applicant’s urgent financial needs.

    2.

    Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period as part of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    —

    In its second plea in law the applicant puts forward arguments that, in essence, are identical or similar to the arguments relied on in the first plea in law.

    3.

    Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 20 of that charter

    —

    In its third plea in law the applicant principally claims that, due to various measures leading to delays in procedure, the defendant infringed the Code of Best Practices for the conduct of State aid control procedures.

    4.

    Infringement of the right to be given reasons as part of the right to an effective remedy under Articles 47 and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    —

    In its fourth plea in law the applicant argues that the defendant could not automatically have assumed that further investigation was necessary and should have substantiated and explained the need for such investigations.

    (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

    Top