# C_2015294EN.01002302.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/23

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

(Case C-264/15 P)

(2015/C 294/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:

| — | To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12;

| — | To rule that the appeal is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

To rule that the appeal is admissible;

| — | To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

| — | To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in case T-269/12, Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. v. Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.

More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

| — | The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

| — | Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

quod non

| — | The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.

---