This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0292
Case C-292/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
Case C-292/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
Case C-292/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
OJ C 252, 27.8.2011, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.8.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 252/19 |
Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-292/11 P)
2011/C 252/34
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Heller)
Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v Commission; |
|
— |
rule on the matters that are the subject of this appeal and were the subject of the action before the General Court, and dismiss the Portuguese Republic’s claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November 2008 demanding payment of the penalty payment; |
|
— |
order the Portuguese Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Commission both at first instance and in this appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court erred in law by: (i) misappraising both the powers of the Commission with regard to compliance with judgments of the Court of Justice made pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU and its own jurisdiction to review the Commission’s actions; (ii) by ruling in the contested judgment, on the basis of an incomplete reading of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2004, that there had been failure to fulfil obligations, thereby infringing Article 260(2) TFEU. Furthermore, on any view the General Court’s judgment is marred by an error of law, for the General Court was in breach of its duty to state reasons, in that it decided on the basis of insufficient, contradictory reasoning that the Commission had overstepped the bounds of the infringement as found by the Court of Justice.