EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0349
Case T-349/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Germany v Commission
Case T-349/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Germany v Commission
Case T-349/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Germany v Commission
OJ C 338, 23.8.2021, 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)
23.8.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 338/23 |
Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-349/21)
(2021/C 338/31)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Commission Decision (EU) 2021/534 of 24 March 2021 determining under Article 39(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council whether a measure taken by Germany to prohibit the placing on the market of a lift model manufactured by Orona is justified or not; (1) |
— |
order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Section 2.2, Annex I to Directive 95/16/EC in conjunction with harmonised standard EN 81-1 in so far as the Commission misinterpreted the scope of the requirement of the vertical distance between the car roof and the well ceiling
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Section 2.2, Annex I to Directive 95/16/EC in conjunction with harmonised standard EN 81-1 in so far as the Commission erred in establishing the relevant accident scenarios for the assessment
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging incorrect findings of fact in so far as the Commission failed to have regard to the significance of the time necessary to assume a safe position and to the risk of uncontrolled upward movements of the car
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging incorrect findings and assessment of fact in so far as the Commission adopted a misrepresentation derived from the Conformance study
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the rules of evidence and infringement of Article 5(2) of Directive 95/16/EC
|