This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0553
Case C-553/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission
Case C-553/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission
Case C-553/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission
IO C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/27 |
Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission
(Case C-553/14 P)
(2015/C 046/34)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-35/11; |
|
— |
rule that the appeal is admissible; |
|
— |
return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
|
— |
order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appeal is based on the following two grounds:
First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.
Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.