# C_2016211EN.01003901.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/39

---

Appeal brought on 22 April 2016 by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) against the order made by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 9 February 2016 in Case T-639/14 Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) v European Commission

(Case C-228/16 P)

(2016/C 211/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) (represented by: Efthymios Bourtzalas, Anargyros Oikonomou, Efstathia Salaka, Charalampos Synodinos, Charisios Tagaras, Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule on the appellant’s claims seeking annulment of the contested measure of 12 June 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule on the appellant’s claims seeking annulment of the contested measure of 12 June 2014;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the order under appeal is vitiated by material errors of law and must be set aside on the following grounds:

| (1) | manifest error of law and a failure to state reasons so far as concerns the finding that Case T-639/14 became devoid of purpose, inasmuch as that finding is based on the supposed ‘replacement’ of the contested measure by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

manifest error of law and a failure to state reasons so far as concerns the finding that Case T-639/14 became devoid of purpose, inasmuch as that finding is based on the supposed ‘replacement’ of the contested measure by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015;

| (2) | infringement of the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection in holding that the measure of 25 March 2015 replaces the contested measure; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

infringement of the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection in holding that the measure of 25 March 2015 replaces the contested measure;

| (3) | manifest error of law so far as concerns interpretation and application of the principle that acts of the institutions of the European Union are lawful; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

manifest error of law so far as concerns interpretation and application of the principle that acts of the institutions of the European Union are lawful;

| (4) | distortion of the facts and infringement of the right to be heard so far as concerns the finding that the contested measure’s reasoning ‘does not refer at all to the issue whether any aid in the form of the arbitral award is of State origin’ and manifest error of assessment so far as concerns the finding that the legal defects in the contested measure which are put forward by DEI ‘will necessarily be assessed in ... Case T-352/15’; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

distortion of the facts and infringement of the right to be heard so far as concerns the finding that the contested measure’s reasoning ‘does not refer at all to the issue whether any aid in the form of the arbitral award is of State origin’ and manifest error of assessment so far as concerns the finding that the legal defects in the contested measure which are put forward by DEI ‘will necessarily be assessed in ... Case T-352/15’;

| (5) | distortion of DEI’s reasoning regarding the criteria on the basis of which it should be decided whether or not there is a need to adjudicate in the present case as regards the complaint of 2012 and manifest error of law so far as concerns the finding that the complaint of 2012 was rejected ‘implicitly’ by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; and |
| --- | --- |

(5)

distortion of DEI’s reasoning regarding the criteria on the basis of which it should be decided whether or not there is a need to adjudicate in the present case as regards the complaint of 2012 and manifest error of law so far as concerns the finding that the complaint of 2012 was rejected ‘implicitly’ by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; and

| (6) | error of law and manifest error of assessment in holding that each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

error of law and manifest error of assessment in holding that each party is to bear its own costs.

---