# C_2021028EN.01003102.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/31

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2020 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15 RENV, IMG v Commission

(Case C-620/20 P)

(2021/C 28/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (IMG) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15/RENV; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 in Case T-381/15/RENV;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance as revised and, accordingly: |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance as revised and, accordingly:

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage as amended in its observations after Case T-381/15 RENV was referred back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage as amended in its observations after Case T-381/15 RENV was referred back to the General Court;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

| a. | The unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct






  1. | Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P); |
| --- | --- | --- |

a.

The unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct

1.

Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P);

| 2. | The judgment under appeal misconstrues the concept of international organisation laid down by the financial regulations: failure to respect international recognition; breach of the hierarchy of norms; failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, referred to above, and with the financial regulations; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment under appeal misconstrues the concept of international organisation laid down by the financial regulations: failure to respect international recognition; breach of the hierarchy of norms; failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 31 January 2019, referred to above, and with the financial regulations;

| 3. | Breach of the principle of sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Breach of the principle of sound administration;

| 4. | The judgment under appeal misconstrued the concept of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The judgment under appeal misconstrued the concept of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals.

| b. | The damage






  1. | As regards the claims in the first, second and third indents of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; failure to comply with the conditions governing admissibility; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; |
| --- | --- | --- |

b.

The damage

1.

As regards the claims in the first, second and third indents of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; failure to comply with the conditions governing admissibility; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

| 2. | As regards the claims in the fourth indent of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the obligation to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Articles 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards the claims in the fourth indent of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the obligation to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Articles 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

| 3. | As regards non-material damage: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; error in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As regards non-material damage: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; error in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction.

---