90Furthermore, it must be observed that this plea lacks any independent content. In order to preserve its procedural rights in the context of the formal examination procedure, the applicant may rely solely on evidence to show that the assessment of the information and elements that the Commission had or could have had at its disposal during the preliminary examination phase of the notified measure should have raised doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008, Régie Networks, C‑333/07, EU:C:2008:764, paragraph 81; of 9 July 2009, 3F v Commission, C‑319/07 P, EU:C:2009:435, paragraph 35; and of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraph 59), such as the inadequacy or incompleteness of the Commission’s examination in the preliminary examination procedure or the existence of complaints from third parties. It must be observed that this plea repeats in condensed form the arguments raised under the first plea, without identifying specific evidence relating to potential serious difficulties.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.