EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0463
Case T-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
Case T-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
Case T-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
OJ C 303, 8.9.2014, p. 44–45
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 303/44 |
Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
(Case T-463/14)
2014/C 303/52
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission’s implementing decision in Case C(2014) 2093 in so far as Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply to the award of contracts for postal services which are not mentioned in Article 1 of the implementing decision, exemption from which the applicant has requested under Article 30(6) of Directive 2004/17/EC; |
|
— |
in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment of the contested decision is, according to the Court, not admissible or possible, to annul the implementing decision in its entirety; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision, as regards the postal services not covered by Article 1 thereof, is unlawful under Article 263(2) TFEU because the Commission has infringed EU law by misapplying and misinterpreting Directive 2004/17/EC. The applicant claims, in essence, that the postal services which it provides are exposed to sufficient direct competition, so that the conditions for an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17 are met. The applicant also claims that the Commission misapplied the criteria and methods on market definition laid down by EU law and case-law.
Furthermore, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision.
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed general fundamental procedural rights, in that by failing to adequately address the applicant’s claims and evidence, it infringed the applicant’s right to be heard.