CELEX: 62008TN0556
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-556/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Slovenská pošta v Commission

7.3.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 55/35
            
         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Slovenská pošta v Commission
   (Case T-556/08)
   (2009/C 55/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic) (represented by: O. Brouwer, C. Schillemans, M. Knapen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 5912 final of 7 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.562 — Slovakian Postal Law) by which the Commission found Slovakian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services contrary to Article 86(1) read in conjunction with Article 82 EC to the extent that it reserves to the applicant the delivery of hybrid mail items.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it submits that the Commission violated the Community law principle of sound administration by failing to duly investigate all the facts and interests involved as, in the applicant's opinion, the contested decision is based on a number of assumptions. The applicant further states that the Commission violated the duty to state adequate reasons as laid down in Article 253 EC.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Commission violated the applicant's right to be effectively heard.
   Third, it contends that the Commission committed manifest errors in assessment and interpretation, in fact and in law, of the lawfulness of the granting of exclusive rights in the postal sector as a result of which it gave a wrong application to Articles 86 EC and 82 EC.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that by adopting a fundamentally different and unprecedented approach with regard to the definition of the relevant market, the Commission has violated the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.