# C_2016279EN.01000901.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/9

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission

(Case C-198/16 P)

(2016/C 279/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

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 under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application.

| 2. | As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee.

| 3. | Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence.

| 4. | Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid.

---