# C_2016098EN.01002601.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/26

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis

European Commission

(Case C-45/16 P)

(2016/C 098/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: Κonstantinos Damis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission;

d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis

European Commission

| — | uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue.
  The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue.

The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract.

| 2. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
  The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue.

| 3. | Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons.
  Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment.
  The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons.

Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment.

The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced.

---