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 62013TN0416

Case T-416/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

IO C 313, 26.10.2013, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.10.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/29

Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

(Case T-416/13)

2013/C 313/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valletta, Malta); and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris, and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Annul the contested decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013, to close the complaint filed by the applicants against the Hellenic Republic and the Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics (OPAP) in case COMP/39.981; and

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence, and a manifest error of fact in assessing the arguments set out in the complaint with reference to Article 102 TFEU, the concrete and autonomous abuse or abuses of dominance committed by OPAP and the relevant market definition.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to state reasons and a breach of Article 296 TFEU.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission and breach of the principle of autonomous nature and objectives of competition rules.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of law, failure to assess the compatibility of the relevant Greek legislation with Union law, prior to conducting the assessment of an infringement under Article 102 TFEU, and breach of the right to a good and diligent administration conferred by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Rights, and the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence with reference to Article 106 TFEU.
Top