# C_2011340EN.01001201.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/12

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

Hellenic Republic

Commission

(Case C-497/11 P)

2011/C 340/21

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, and G. Michailopoulos)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic;

| — | uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies.

First plea:

| 2. | Second plea:
  misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea:
  misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project.

Second plea:

| 3. | Third plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors.

Third plea:

| 4. | Fourth plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy.

Fourth plea:

| 5. | Fifth plea:
  failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea:
  failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard.

Fifth plea:

---