This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023CN0252
Case C-252/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
Case C-252/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
Case C-252/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
OJ C 189, 30.5.2023, p. 26–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.5.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 189/26 |
Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
(Case C-252/23 P)
(2023/C 189/35)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, V. Villante, avvocati, P. Gjørtler, advokat,)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare admissible the present appeal; |
|
— |
set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Euranimi admissible; |
|
— |
send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Euranimi’s action; |
|
— |
order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three main pleas in law:
First plea: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — wrong qualification of facts.
Second plea: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.
Third plea: wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.