Documents
Europa English Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU
25.04.2025
Order
Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT 24 April 2025(*)( Removal from the Register )In Case T-489/22,Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, established in Hong Kong (China), represented by M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers,applicant,v European Commission, represented by P. Rossi, M. Domecq, T. Isacu de Groot, L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents,defendant, 1 By its action under Article 268 TFEU and Article 340 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 266 TFEU, the applicant, Cathay P...
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT 24 April 2025(*)( Removal from the Register )In Case T-489/22,Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, established in Hong Kong (China), represented by M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers,applicant,v European Commission, represented by P. Rossi, M. Domecq, T. Isacu de Groot, L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents,defendant, 1 By its action under Article 268 TFEU and Article 340 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 266 TFEU, the applicant, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, seeks compensation for the damage sustained because of the European Commission’s refusal to pay the applicant default interest on the principal amount of a fine reimbursed following the General Court’s judgment of 30 March 2022, Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission (T-343/17, EU:T:2022:184) as well as compound interest on the default interest amount. Moreover, the applicant seeks, under Article 263 TFEU, an annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2022 refusing to pay it default interest and compound interest thereon.2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 9 April 2025, the applicant informed the Court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that it wished to discontinue proceedings as the parties had reached an amicable settlement, which included an agreement as to costs.3 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 10 April 2025, the defendant confirmed to the Court that the parties’ dispute had been...
Errors and omissions excepted. As of: 25.04.2025