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 62015CN0264

    Case C-264/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

    OJ C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.9.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 294/23

    Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

    (Case C-264/15 P)

    (2015/C 294/29)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

    Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

    Form of order sought

    The appellant requests the Court:

    —

    To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12;

    —

    To rule that the appeal is admissible;

    —

    To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

    —

    To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    This appeal is brought by Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in case T-269/12, Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. v. Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

    The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

    More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

    —

    The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

    —

    Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

    —

    The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.
    Top