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 62013TN0355

    Case T-355/13: Action brought on 4 July 2013 — easyJet Airline v Commission

    OJ C 260, 7.9.2013, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 260, 7.9.2013, p. 34–34 (HR)

    7.9.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 260/44

    Action brought on 4 July 2013 — easyJet Airline v Commission

    (Case T-355/13)

    2013/C 260/79

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. J. Werner and R. Marian, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Declare void the Commission’s decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 in Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol; and

    —

    Order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law (misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)) combined with manifest error of assessment (erroneous conclusion that the national proceedings in the Netherlands equated to a national competition authority having dealt with the case).

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes an essential procedural requirement, namely the failure to give adequate statements for the reasons for its rejection. In addition, the Commission has not considered all the matters of fact and of law which the applicant brought to its attention.

    (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

    Top