25.7.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 270/58 |
Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Inpost Paczkomaty v Commission
(Case T-282/16)
(2016/C 270/65)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: T. Proć, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul European Commission Decision (EU) C(2015) 8236 of 26 November 2015 on State aid SA.38869 (2014/N), which Poland intends to grant to the Polish postal service as compensation for net costs arising in the years 2013-2015 in connection with the duty to provide universal services; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant raises seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 19 (Clause 2.6) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)], infringement of the Treaty principles on public procurement and incorrect application of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14; ‘the Postal Services Directive’)
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty and incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of headings 14 (Clause 2.2) and 60 (Clause 2.10) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)]
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 52 (Clause 2.9) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)] and infringement of Article 7(1), (3) and (5) of the Postal Services Directive
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive, since the European Commission acknowledges that the costs of the universal service were financed through a multitude of exclusive and special rights which were granted to the Polish postal service
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102, in conjunction with Article 106(1), of the Treaty
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty
|