CELEX: 62008TN0378
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-378/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Portugal v Commission

8.11.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 285/51
            
         Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-378/08)
   (2008/C 285/91)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L.Inez Fernandes and J. de Oliveira, Agents)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Principally, a declaration that the notice of payment MARKT/C2/PMS/bmgD(2008) 13692 issued by the Director-General of Directorate-General Internal Market and Services of 15 July 2008 under the heading ‘demand for payment of the periodic penalty payable by the Portuguese Republic in compliance with the judgment given in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portuguese Republic’ is invalid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               alternatively, a declaration that that notice is invalid, in so far as its effects extend beyond 29 January 2008;
            
         
               —
            
            
               an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs or, if the Court of First Instance should reduce the amount of the periodic penalty, an order that each party should bear its own costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Portuguese Republic claims that it has fully complied with the judgments of the Court of Justice by adopting Law No 67/2007 expressly repealing Decree-Law No 48051.
   The Portuguese Republic further claims that the Director-General of DG Internal Market and Services had no power to adopt the contested measure, which failed to have regard to the Portuguese Republic's rights of the defence, fails to state the reasons on which it is based and was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements.