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 62014TN0810

Case T-810/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Portugal v Commission

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/40

Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-810/14)

(2015/C 065/55)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Arsénio de Oliveira and S. Nunes de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare invalid the notice of assessment submitted by the General Secretariat of the European Commission by letter 2014D/14507 of 6 October 2014.

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging appropriation of the powers of the European Union jurisdictional area by the Commission, thereby constituting a lack of competence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, as the act is based on an artificial division of the effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-292/1.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of res judicata, as the act was carried out in breach of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, the stability of legal relations and legitimate expectations, recognised by EU law.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the prohibition against double penalties, which precludes obtaining, through a new individual legal act, what could not be obtained previously by means of annulment judgments.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States, constituting a lack of competence, in that the Commission tried to restrict the right of Member States to determine a reasonable period for a provision to come into effect.
Top