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 62017TN0293

    Case T-293/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission

    OJ C 249, 31.7.2017, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    31.7.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 249/29

    Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission

    (Case T-293/17)

    (2017/C 249/45)

    Language of the case: Polish

    Parties

    Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to take a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX group, notwithstanding the fact that it was formally called on to do so;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs, even in the event that the case does not proceed to judgment in view of the adoption by the Commission of a decision during the judicial proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 288 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 102 TFEU and 105 TFEU and with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    The adoption, after three and a half years, of an initial, allegedly factual position in the procedure regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant does not constitute dealing with the case within a reasonable time. The Commission has not produced any evidence making it possible to determine that any action whatsoever was undertaken during the investigation procedure. Before adopting a decision, the Commission is required to carry out a thorough analysis of the matters of fact and of law put forward by the complainant. The proceedings initiated by the applicant constitute the only way in which it can safeguard its rights.

    Top