CELEX: 62011CN0073
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-73/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

30.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 130/12
            
         Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
   (Case C-73/11 P)
   2011/C 130/22
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, Barrister, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               1.
            
            
               set aside the General Court’s decision of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 as it relates to the fourth and sixth pleas in the Appellant’s Application before the General Court;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               uphold those pleas as well-founded;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the Appellant’s fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth pleas as they relate to the tax execution procedure; and
            
         
               4.
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following two pleas.
   1.   First plea: the General Court failed to assess the Commission’s application of the private creditor test against the correct legal standard.
   
   2.   Second plea: the General Court impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission as regards the application of the private creditor test; and/or assessed the existing evidence relevant to that test in a manner that was manifestly incorrect, thereby distorting the clear sense of the evidence.