Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-92/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, April 24, 2020

• Resolution Date: April 24, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-92/20

Action brought on 14 February 2020 - Fryč v Commission

(Case T-92/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Petr Fryč (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: Š. Oharková, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

rule that the institutions of the European Union gravely breached their obligations and caused the applicant harm on the grounds that:

the European Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 (General block exemption Regulation) in a form in which, inter alia, it exceeds the limits of the Commission’s legal authority under the Treaties, in which it does not ensure observance of the constitutional principles that interference in competition affecting the common market must take place only exceptionally and be justified and in which it unlawfully allowed State aid to be implemented in the context of a subsidy programme (Operační program Podnikání a inovace (Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation; ‘OPEI’)), which damaged the business of the applicant’s firm;

by its decision of 3 December 2007, the European Commission adopted the Operational Programme infringing the Treaties and the Charter and did not publish that decision;

the European Commission did not proceed properly in dealing with the applicant’s complaint as to the unlawfulness of the OPEI inasmuch as it, first, failed to check the circumstances of the creation and implementation of the OPEI and, secondly, failed to properly justify its rejection of the applicant’s complaint;

the Court of Justice of the European Union refused to address the merits of the case in the application for annulment of the General block exemption Regulation and dismissed the application as manifestly unfounded, thereby breaching its constitutional obligation to apply the principle of proportionality, and by its excessively formalistic, unilateral approach infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to effective legal protection and a fair trial;

determine, that the defendant is required to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 4 800 000 by way of compensation for the harm caused by the above, within three days of the date on which the judgment becomes final;

award the applicant the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that harm was caused to the applicant on the grounds of...