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 62017TN0146

Case T-146/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Mondi v ACER

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017, p. 34–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/34

Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Mondi v ACER

(Case T-146/17)

(2017/C 129/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mondi AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision given by the Board of Appeal of the defendant on 17 February 2017 in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) concerning the rejection of the application for leave to intervene lodged by the applicant; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 infringement of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal of the defendant and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had no legitimate interest in the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, since the Board of Appeal failed to notify the applicant of the position taken by the defendant in relation to the application made by the applicant for leave to intervene.
Top