Judgment_paragraph 47 · Galileo International Technology LLC and Others v European Commission (T-279/03)

47Although the application does not expressly refer to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, it thus invokes, at least implicitly, the rights conferred by that provision. Furthermore, it is settled case-law that a mistake made in designating the relevant provision cannot lead to the inadmissibility of the submission put forward, where the purpose and the summary of the complaint appear sufficiently clearly from the application (Case 12/68 X v Audit Board of the European Communities [1969] ECR 109, paragraphs 6 and 7, and Case T-171/99 Corus UK v Commission [2001] ECR II-2967, paragraph 36). It must be concluded from this that an applicant also is not obliged expressly to state on which particular rule of law his complaint is based, provided that his line of argument is sufficiently clear for the opposing party and the Community Courts to be able to identify the rule without difficulty.

Galileo International Technology LLC and Others v European Commission (T-279/03)

Galileo International Technology LLC and Others v European Commission (T-279/03)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections