# C_2020320EN.01001201.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/12

---

Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton AE v European Commission

(Case C-359/20 P)

(2020/C 320/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, M. Angelopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;

| — | uphold the action brought by the applicant/appellant on 16 March 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought by the applicant/appellant on 16 March 2018;

| — | dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant/respondent; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant/respondent;

| — | order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| (1) | Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in performance of the contract at issue and breach of the requirement of legal certainty which requires the EU institutions to exercise their powers within a reasonable time.






  — | Under the first part of the abovementioned ground, the appellant complains that the General Court misinterpreted the content of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable time, failing to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in performance of the contract at issue and breach of the requirement of legal certainty which requires the EU institutions to exercise their powers within a reasonable time.

—

Under the first part of the abovementioned ground, the appellant complains that the General Court misinterpreted the content of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable time, failing to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case.

| — | By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that both the duration of the procedure and the positions adopted by the Commission during the procedure gave it the legitimate expectation that financial corrections would not be imposed upon it. |
| --- | --- |

—

By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that both the duration of the procedure and the positions adopted by the Commission during the procedure gave it the legitimate expectation that financial corrections would not be imposed upon it.

| (2) | Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith as regards acceptance of the breach of the provisions regarding subcontracting in the carrying out of the audit by the Commission.






  — | The General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, as interpreted by the Belgian Court of Cassation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith as regards acceptance of the breach of the provisions regarding subcontracting in the carrying out of the audit by the Commission.

—

The General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, as interpreted by the Belgian Court of Cassation.

---