CELEX: 62011CN0646
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

3.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/6
            
         Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission
   (Case C-646/11 P)
   2012/C 65/11
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Give final judgment on the matter,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
   
               —
            
            
               The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.