This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0297
Case T-297/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
Case T-297/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
Case T-297/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
IO C 226, 30.7.2011, 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)
30.7.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 226/28 |
Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
(Case T-297/11)
2011/C 226/56
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Buzzi Unicem (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the Contested Decision in its entirety for failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons, and the consequent breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the principle of due process; |
— |
annul the Contested Decision in its entirety for excess and abuse of powers and for the consequent reversal of the burden of proof; |
— |
annul the Contested Decision, in whole or in part, as being ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 18 [of Regulation No 1/2003]; and for breach of the principles of proportionality and due process, and failure to hear argument on an inter partes basis, in breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’; |
— |
in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
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 failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons; breach of the rights of the defence; and breach of the principle of due process
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging excess and abuse of powers, and reversal of the burden of proof
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred upon it under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and that the Commission acted ultra vires in relation to Article 18
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ and the principle of sound administration
|