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 62011TN0296

    Case T-296/11: Action brought on 8 June 2011 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission

    OJ C 238, 13.8.2011, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.8.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 238/26

    Action brought on 8 June 2011 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission

    (Case T-296/11)

    2011/C 238/46

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    declare the action admissible;

    —

    annul the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The action has been brought against the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, adopted in relation to Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products.

    In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea of nullity, alleging an infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality.

    —

    First, the applicant submits that the information requested in the contested decision bears no relation to the infringement under investigation and, as such, cannot assist the Commission in its task of verifying any evidence which justifies the investigation in relation to Valderrivas. Consequently, the applicant claims that the requirement of necessity to which requests for information are subject by way of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 is not satisfied. Moreover, the applicant submits that the fact that the decision does not contain any references to such evidence cannot prevent the General Court from carrying out its task of reviewing the requirement of necessity.

    —

    Second, the applicant alleges that the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality in that it imposes on it a disproportionate burden in relation to the requirements of the investigation. The disproportionate nature of the decision is reflected in the excessive scope of the information requested, the high level of detail required, the requirement to process and submit the requested information in the stated formats and within the time limit set out to that effect.
    Top