# C_2005143EN.01002701.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/27

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2005 by Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis against the judgment delivered on 18 January 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-141/01 between Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-162/05 P)

(2005/C 143/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 January 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-141/01 between Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2005 by Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Uphold the pleas in law put forward by the appellant in its appeal and annul in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2005 (Case T-141/01) dismissing its action for the annulment of Decision C(1999) 534 of the European Commission of 4 March 1999, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Uphold the pleas in law put forward by the appellant in its appeal and annul in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2005 (Case T-141/01) dismissing its action for the annulment of Decision C(1999) 534 of the European Commission of 4 March 1999, and

| 2. | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three pleas in law:

| 1. | Impropriety of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, in that that court refused to accept certain evidence from the applicant — which, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant considered to be decisive — and the applicant was not given any opportunity to request in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance that that impropriety be rectified, with the result that its interests were severely impaired and it was prevented from fully exercising its rights of defence — paragraphs 132 to 138 of the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Impropriety of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, in that that court refused to accept certain evidence from the applicant — which, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant considered to be decisive — and the applicant was not given any opportunity to request in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance that that impropriety be rectified, with the result that its interests were severely impaired and it was prevented from fully exercising its rights of defence — paragraphs 132 to 138 of the judgment.

| 2. | Breach of the general legal principle of the presumption of innocence. The examination, evaluation and interpretation of the facts by the Court of First Instance, which was manifestly incorrect and sometimes without foundation, prompted it to base its judgment on reasons which manifestly ran counter to the general legal principle as to the presumption of innocence, which is enjoyed by all persons until such time as a final judgment is delivered against them in criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Breach of the general legal principle of the presumption of innocence. The examination, evaluation and interpretation of the facts by the Court of First Instance, which was manifestly incorrect and sometimes without foundation, prompted it to base its judgment on reasons which manifestly ran counter to the general legal principle as to the presumption of innocence, which is enjoyed by all persons until such time as a final judgment is delivered against them in criminal proceedings.

| 3. | Incorrect legal classification by the Court of First Instance of the applicant as the entity responsible for repaying the aid granted to the Zumaque project, under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 and the decision as to withdrawal. The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance erred in law by stating that Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis — the appellant — was the entity required to repay the aid received under Commission Decision C (1999) 534 of 4 March 1999. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Incorrect legal classification by the Court of First Instance of the applicant as the entity responsible for repaying the aid granted to the Zumaque project, under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 and the decision as to withdrawal. The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance erred in law by stating that Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis — the appellant — was the entity required to repay the aid received under Commission Decision C (1999) 534 of 4 March 1999.

---