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 62010TN0575

    Case T-575/10: Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

    IO C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    19.2.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 55/28

    Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

    (Case T-575/10)

    2011/C 55/50

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (Gijón, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel); and

    —

    order the European Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

    —

    first plea, based on breach of the principle of inalterability of the acts of the institutions and of the principle of good administration.

    —

    second plea, based on the fact that the amended decision breached essential procedural requirements, in that it was adopted without the mandatory consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, as required pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

    —

    third plea, in the alternative, based on breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the fixing of the conditions of the payment of the fine and breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based.
    Top