# C_2012200EN.01000901.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/9

---

Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v European Commission

(Case C-246/12 P)

2012/C 200/16

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigia AE (represented by: I. Drosos, lawyer. V. Karagiannis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the appeal proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court in Case Τ-391/08. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court in Case Τ-391/08.

| — | annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8(2), 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the initially contested Commission decision of 2 July 2008:‘On the measures C 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards [Ellinika Nafpigia A.E]’. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8(2), 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the initially contested Commission decision of 2 July 2008:‘On the measures C 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards [Ellinika Nafpigia A.E]’.

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measures Ε12b, Ε13a, Ε13b, Ε14, Ε16 and Ε17 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measures Ε12b, Ε13a, Ε13b, Ε14, Ε16 and Ε17 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.

| — | in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measure Ε7 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measure Ε7 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs both in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs both in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 346 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the second ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 348 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the third ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erroneously rejected its claims concerning the infringement of its procedural rights by the initially contested decision, an error which means that the judgment under appeal must be set aside to the extent set out in the appeal.

---