CELEX: 62019TN0368
Language: en
Date: 2019-06-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-368/19: Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

12.8.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 270/37
            
         
      Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission
      (Case T-368/19)
      (2019/C 270/39)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare that the defendant has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 108 TFEU in so far as it failed to close the formal investigation procedure in Case SA.34402 (2015/C ex 2012/NN) by means of a decision within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation 2015/1589; (1)
                  
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  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 the following pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 108 TFEU through a failure to close the formal investigation procedure
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              In its first plea in law the applicant argues that the procedure length of over seven years must be held to be unreasonable. In this regard the applicant argues that, in the light of the extensive information available to the defendant and the small number of open questions, a decision should already have been taken. Further, a decision must be taken shortly due to the applicant’s urgent financial needs.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period as part of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              In its second plea in law the applicant puts forward arguments that, in essence, are identical or similar to the arguments relied on in the first plea in law.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 20 of that charter
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              In its third plea in law the applicant principally claims that, due to various measures leading to delays in procedure, the defendant infringed the Code of Best Practices for the conduct of State aid control procedures.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Infringement of the right to be given reasons as part of the right to an effective remedy under Articles 47 and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              In its fourth plea in law the applicant argues that the defendant could not automatically have assumed that further investigation was necessary and should have substantiated and explained the need for such investigations.
                           
                        
            
         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).