# C_2016211EN.01005601.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/56

---

Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T-149/16)

(2016/C 211/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;

| — | order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment






  — | The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

—

The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment






  — | The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment

—

The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.

---