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 62010TN0344

Case T-344/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission

IO C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 50–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/50

Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-344/10)

()

(2010/C 288/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany), (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and E.V.A. Henny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Declare, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post; and

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, a declaration that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post ((OJ 2007 C 245, p. 21).

In support of their action, the applicants submit that since the Commission has not defined its position in the above mentioned investigation procedure within a reasonable time period, it has breached Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).

In addition, by failing to define its position within a reasonable time period, the Commission has also breached the principles of good administration and legal certainty. According to the applicants, the principle of sound administration should have been respected since it is one of the general principles common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Moreover, this principle is clearly reflected in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Top