CELEX: 62012TN0389
Language: en
Date: 2012-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-389/12: Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission

27.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/29
            
         
      Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission
      (Case T-389/12)
      (2012/C 331/55)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Électricité de France SA (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant an extension until 31 December 2014 of the Final Investment Decision deadline provided by one of the Commitments imposed in merger proceedings (Case No COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         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
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              error of law and incorrect application of paragraphs 72 et seq. of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (1).
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              manifest error of assessment of the significant facts of the case.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              violation of the principle of proportionality.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              misuse of powers and/or violation of the principle of sound administration.
                           
                        
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              lack of motivation, since the Commission failed to provide any reason supporting its decision.
                           
                        
            
         (1)  OJ C 267 2008, p. 1